From: Hartmut Niemann <niemann@cip.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de>
  To  : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
  Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 09:11:06 +0200 (MESZ)

Do We Want KGI To Be The Standard? (Re: I'm back)

> 
> Licensing: I'd like to see us supporting *BSD. In fact I don't even care
> 
> if our drivers end up in someone's game running on DOS. The real
> question
> is DO WE WANT KGI TO BE THE STANDARD? I think we do, but this
> requires us to be very open:
> 
> * We are linking into other's kernels, which is the major piece of work
> of the 2.
> * We'll never convince commercial Unixes to use our driver model unless
>    they can use us without GPL
> * Xfree is working very well. They are free as hell. We need eventually
> to
>    co-opt some of those guys to improve our driver base
> * Somehow on this one, I doubt too many people have to gain by keeping
> their own
>    modified copies of drivers: it's a lot of effort, and what does it
> really achieve.
> 
> [...]
> 
> So I suggest: the strongest non-commercial license for whatever it is
> linked to.
> * for Linux GPL (tradition, and the kernel is GPL'd),
> * BSD: BSD license
> * For anything else Xfree like license except a statement that this
> product uses
>    KGI technology (www.ggi-project.org)
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Sengan
> 
> 

If we want to make KGI *anything at all* we must come to a conclusion
regarding the license. To me a GPL'ed working package is better than no
package, after all.

While I don't have a problem with Sengan's suggestion, my question is:
do 'Free License Hardliners' see a problem with this three-fold
license? Is there any software out there that *has* such a license which
basically states: use the license your OS came with, if it is a 'free' OS;
otherwise use XXXX?

The main problem that I see is that we want to make 
*cross-platform kernel parts*.
- if we have a BSDish license, the GNU/Linux crowd says *no*.
- if we have the GPL, the *BSD crowd says *never*.
- if we have both, doesn't that contradict itself?
  How could we make such a license fireproof? Can such a license
  logically exist?

Can we release the drivers (which are the trouble spot!) with 
different licenses, but how can we prevent that they diverge?

My feeling is that the original author could release a GNU-licensed
tarball and a 'BSD edition' with different licenses, but could he
add contributions he gets from one side to the other tree?
A (major) contribution to a GPL'ed work is (AFAIK) GPL'ed in itself,
and can't be incorporated into a non-GPL'ed piece. Right?

So if we start having a BSD and a GPL driver, we can disalow
(distribution of) modifications as well :-(

A BSD/GPL mix or dual license approach, if feasible at all, can lead to
a maintenance nightmare.

And if the original author wants to abandon his driver (new job/graphics
board/whatever), we need one maintainer for the GNU tree and one for the
BSD tree????? Or not?

<rant>
As I see it, we have three choices.
- we use GPL and have trouble with the *BSD crowd,
- we use BSD and have trouble with the Linux crowd,
- we use a mix of both or something homemade, and have trouble with
  both of them, and maintenance will be a nightmare.
Please mnake your choice.
</rant>
Or not?
Comments?

Hartmut.
--  
Hartmut Niemann   --   niemann(a)cip.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de
http://cip2.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de:8080/hyplan/niemann/index_en.html [/ggi]