Void's Forums

It also would prevent a tiVO'ish scenario happening again. You wouldn't be able to lock code away in hardware and not be able to alter the code without the hardware working. v3 would force them to go to the author of the code and strike up a deal for his permission and a % of the take to make this legal.

As I understand it anyway.

ZiaTioN wrote:Actually what is done is done as far as GPLv2 code goes. Any company that currently has something licensed under GPLv2 can and probably will continue to make profit off of others free and open contributions.

And actually there is nothing wrong with them making a profit off of others free and open contributions. That is, as long as they give their users the same freedoms that the creators of the code require in the license.

JoeDude wrote:It also would prevent a tiVO'ish scenario happening again. You wouldn't be able to lock code away in hardware and not be able to alter the code without the hardware working. v3 would force them to go to the author of the code and strike up a deal for his permission and a % of the take to make this legal.

As I understand it anyway.

Actually the hope would be for the manufacturer not to close up the code in the hardware in the first place rather than striking up any back door deals, which could be very difficult if there are a lot of contributors to the code (think kernel where there are thousands of copyright holders).

lol...I wonder what the percent take on a kernel would be?

Here's your .58 cents, thanks for contributing to our multibillion $$$ project!

how much would the administration for that cost? i am sure there would be a clause saying the admin costs would be taken off the top of the royalties to each author...

"Here's $0.58 minus the $1.15 for administration... you owe us 57 cents"