Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 85

Thread: ATI R300 Mesa, Gallium3D Compared To Catalyst

  1. #61
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by monraaf View Post

    On the other hand, the more liberal license of the graphics stack has not yielded in any significant contributions from the BSD camp. And they've been leeching on Linux code for quite some time now.
    If you use code under the code's license, in the way it was intended, how can you be a leech?

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    767

    Default

    Simply by differentiating between laws and ethics.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rohcQaH View Post
    Simply by differentiating between laws and ethics.
    How is it unethical to use code in the way it's intended to be used by the license that was chosen by the developers?

    Adam

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Have a good day.
    Posts
    678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Svartalf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by yotambien
    It's not about developers, but about users (that's you). There's a reason why the licenses are either MIT or LGPL. Programs (thus users) have to use those libraries, regardless of what license those programs are written on. Or else you won't play much Q3 with the OSS drivers.
    Actually, if it's LGPLed only, it'd not impact the users at all.

    It really is more about the pool of available people willing to do the work and have the right skills to do it. It's not an easy thing doing this stuff- and at least until Gallium's done, you're going to need a developer at least a couple of cuts above average to do the work.
    There is no point to argue here. I was answering moonraf, who was wondering whether licensing the graphics stack to the GPL would attract more developers. In this case, the choice of license has less to do with the developers and more to do with the possible uses their work will have. MIT and LGPL are fine in this respect, GPL is not. Of course, maybe moonraf was referring to LGPL all the time when he wrote GPL, I don't know.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    988

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adamk View Post
    If you use code under the code's license, in the way it was intended, how can you be a leech?
    Here's the Wikipedia definition of a leech:

    In computing and specifically on the Internet, being a leech or leecher refers to the practice of benefiting, usually deliberately, from others' information or effort but not offering anything in return, or only token offerings in an attempt to avoid being called a leech. In economics this type of behavior is called "Free riding" and is associated with the Free rider problem.
    Now such behavior may be allowed by the license, the U.S. Constitution or by God, it doesn't really matter. A leech is still a leech even when it is perfectly in it's legal right to do so.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    988

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yotambien View Post
    There is no point to argue here. I was answering moonraf, who was wondering whether licensing the graphics stack to the GPL would attract more developers. In this case, the choice of license has less to do with the developers and more to do with the possible uses their work will have. MIT and LGPL are fine in this respect, GPL is not. Of course, maybe moonraf was referring to LGPL all the time when he wrote GPL, I don't know.
    I don't know who is 'moonraf', but I suspect you're referring to me. For the kernel side of the graphics stack (i.e. drm) GPL should be fine. I'm quite aware that for users space libraries the situation is a little different and that's why I wrote that I would be in favor of the LGPL license.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    352

    Default

    Ahhh.. So as a user who doesn't actually contribute code, you (and I) would be considered a leech since we benefit from others' information or effort without offering much in return.

    The FreeBSD DRM developers actually contribute code (even if it's only BSD specific code), making them slightly less of a leech than you or I :-)

    Adam

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    988

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adamk View Post
    Ahhh.. So as a user who doesn't actually contribute code, you (and I) would be considered a leech since we benefit from others' information or effort without offering much in return.
    Actually I did invest some of my time in testing and localizing bugs and did contribute a tiny bit of code. So I do contribute a little, as time and knowledge permits me.

    The FreeBSD DRM developers actually contribute code (even if it's only BSD specific code), making them slightly less of a leech than you or I :-)
    In my book porting code is not the same as contributing code

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Leeching is simply taking without putting back. If Microsoft takes it without handing out it is simply leeching.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Leeching is simply taking without putting back. If Microsoft takes it without handing out it is simply leeching.
    And all end-users are by definition leeches whereas developers are contributors? I find it hard to find a point in this kind of arguing unless the point is to try to make people feel guilty.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •