From: Sengan Baring-Gould <sengan@seqnet.net>
  To  : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
  Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 19:29:21 -0600

Re: Licenses and stubborn people

Jason McMullan wrote:

> Hartmut Niemann <niemann@cip.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de> wrote with confidence:
> > I am tired of this discussion.
> >
>
>  So am I. I would be happy with BSD for libGGI, GPL for kgicon.

Funny. I would say the opposite:

BSD/GPL for kgicon
LGPL for libggi.

But I don't code the latter, so my vote is:

BSD/GPL for kgicon with:
a) the requirement that any new contributions are both BSD and GPL
b) the request for people taking the BSD license to give back anyway.

My reasons are:

- kgi could work on BeOS
- kgi could work on Solaris now the source is available (they're not
   going to GPL solaris to get our kgi drivers)
- kgi could work on *BSD with the right license
- kgi could work on MacOS X
- kgi could work on JavaOS
- kgi could work on DOS (djgpp) or WinCE

With the UDI (see slashdot) initiative, there is possible interest from other
*nixes
Now if there is one driver for all these platforms, there will be more interest
from
vendors to make kgi drivers. Right now because X exists on more platforms, if we
were to employ someone at work to do a linux driver it would most likely be X.
The advantages of kgi must be:

- ease of programming
- flexibility
- widespread availability.

Anything else is a shot in the foot. Also, please Steffen get the new API out
soon.
If scitech, etc are to use kgi as a model, we better have one and only one API.

Sengan