Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Dec 2006 19:58 UTC, submitted by Michael Larabel
3D News, GL, DirectX "Nouveau is a community project that is working on producing open-source 3D display drivers for NVIDIA graphics cards. Nouveau is not affiliated with Nvidia Corp and is an X.Org project. While this project is still far from being completed, for this holiday special we are sharing some of our first thoughts on this project from our experience thus far. We would like to make it very clear, however, that the Nouveau driver is no where near completed and still has a great deal of work ahead for the 3D component. This article today will also hopefully shed some light on the advancements of this project so far."
Thread beginning with comment 196228
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Nice
by spikeb on Tue 26th Dec 2006 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice"
spikeb
Member since:
2006-01-18

plus, if the GPL is compatible with the other license, who cares?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Nice
by sean on Tue 26th Dec 2006 15:39 in reply to "RE[4]: Nice"
sean Member since:
2005-06-29

The GPL in incompatible with MIT and BSD licenses if it is used with source of those licenses in the sense that it would effectively change the license of that source code.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Nice
by ntl_ on Tue 26th Dec 2006 16:33 in reply to "RE[5]: Nice"
ntl_ Member since:
2005-07-09

That is not what would happen at *all*. If I am the copyright holder of BSD licensed code X, I don't have the legal *right* to incorporate GPL licensed code Y into code X and then distribute it. To do so would violate Y's copyright holder. If I *chose* to release a version of X under the terms of the GPL, I could bundle Y.

There as a subtle (but HUGE) difference between the situation I described and your claim: in your case, you make the GPL the active agent which goes around changing the license of other source code. That is just not true; the GPL never changed anybody's license.

In my case, I place the responsible party for a license change on the BSD license holder who *chooses* to integrate GPL code into his project. Big difference.

The GPL is *not* a virus. Developers who choose to ignore licensing issues are asking for trouble. But even if you accidentally include GPL code in your project, the GPL copyright holder can quite easily order a cease and desist to your distribution of the code. She cannot, however, make all of your code magically GPL licensed.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Nice
by hal2k1 on Thu 28th Dec 2006 09:21 in reply to "RE[5]: Nice"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//The GPL in incompatible with MIT and BSD licenses if it is used with source of those licenses in the sense that it would effectively change the license of that source code.//

MIT & BSD licenses are promiscuous licenses and they allow this.

Specifically, those licenses allow anyone to take the BSD or MIT code and incorporate it into another program under a different license.

They even allow their code to be incorporated into a proprietary plrogram.

That is why most open source projects are licensed under the GPL, and not BSD or MIT license. Under the GPL, no-one is allowed to "steal" the code into a closed-source product.

Reply Parent Score: 2