> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Mark Vojkovich > Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 3:48 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] Re: [forum] Re: Announcement: > Modification to the base XFree86(TM) license. > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Sven Luther wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 08:25:40PM +0100, Egbert Eich wrote: > > > Sven Luther writes: > > > > > > > > Maybe a decision on both parts on this would be ok ? XFree86 could > make > > > > sure the licence of the driver code would not conflict with the > GPL, > > > > keeping the old one for example, and the fbdev driver authors would > > > > dual-licence the code, both GPL and the old xfree86 licence would > do > > > > just fine. Benjamin, what do you think about this ? > > > > > > > > BTW, CCing this to the linux-fbdev mailing list. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, a personal agreement between driver developers would also work. > > > However they tend to change and other people will make contributions > > > who all would have to agree also. > > > I don't know if a general dual license agreement in the kernel > > > file header would be possible. Also it could get removed once > > > the author changes. Just like the license in the XFree86 driver > > > could be amended. > > > > I guess already some drivers have such a dual licencing. > > > > > Doing this now for existing fbdev driver would involve to ask > > > anyone who has contributed little more than a typo fix. > > > > Yeah, that would be rather problematic, but anyway, most of the things > > move from the XFree86 code to fbdev code, and most often, it is not code > > that is copied, but the register information and such. It is always > > easier to get specs if you are working for XFree86 than if you plan to > > do some kernel driver work. > > > > You can take an XFree86 driver, regardless of what the copyright > says, and completely rewrite it as an fbdev driver (which is what > I believe usually happens) and this is not a violation of the > XFree86 copyright or even of the GPL. Copyright doesn't apply to > ideas or algorithms in a work. It's not a patent. It only applies > to the reproduction of the code. > > > Mark.
Those are valuable comments, but just to highlight some distinctions, here's a common analogy... If we both take a picture of the grand canyon and copyright it, each can be distributed without infringing the other. If you record a country-western song, and I listen to it and record it as a jazz ballad, do you deserve acknowlegement? Rich _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
