[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] FreeOSZoo will stop March 1, 2005
Jim C. Brown
Re: [Qemu-devel] FreeOSZoo will stop March 1, 2005
Sun, 13 Feb 2005 11:53:56 -0500
On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 07:21:28AM +0100, James Mastros wrote:
> Jim C. Brown wrote:
> >>a) iEmulator wouldn't use kqemu anyway. kqemu is for running
> >>x86-on-x86. iEmulator is for x86-on-PowerPC. Thus, the iEmulator
> >>people aren't loosing anything.
> >But they are using qemu. If qemu was closed source, then iEmulator
> >wouldn't have
> >been able to do that.
> Yes, this is my point. By making kqemu closed source, he isn't hurting
> iEmulator, but is hurting people who do use it.
Irrevevant. If qemu was closed source from the start, iEmulator wouldn't
have been able to do anything period (short of massive disassembly &
> The iEmulator people
> couldn't care less about the status of kqemu. Sure, it may have a bad
> effect on some other people selling qemu wrappers. It certainly has ill
> effects on people who are trying to run x86-on-x86, and having problems,
> because they can't try looking through the kqemu source, and fixing
> problems that may live there.
Say kqemu was made open source, and say that iEmulator decided to expand by
releasing a new product, kVirtual. They could do this all over again, and
make more profit. Or maybe some other company unrelated to iEmulator could
use kqemu to make kVirtual.
The point I was making is that maybe Fabrice can't do anything about them
now, but he at least wants to avoid a repeat.
> >Of course qemu isnt under the GPL at all, so that is impossible. Only
> >code uses the GPL license, and that is probably due to the fact that it
> >linux kernel code.
> Yes, it is, read LICENSE. qemu-user is under the GPL (proper),
> qemu-proper and libqemu are under the lesser GPL.
GPL != LGPL
The main difference being, LGPL makes what iEmulator is doing perfectly legal
as they don't need to give the source code unless they modify the qemu code.
Since it is LGPL & they give Fabric credit, iEmulator has done nothing illegal.
> I'd recommend to
> Fabrice re-licensing under the GPL proper instead of the LGPL -- if you
> don't like people selling products based on qemu without them being
> open-source, then the GPL is probably closer to your wishes then the
> >>If iEmulator is not breaking the GPL, then put the code into the qemu
> >>CVS. If they are, then start making quiet threats. If they don't open
> >>up, then talk to GNU, http://www.softwarefreedom.org/. If they still
> >>don't, then it's time to make loud threats -- post to /., etc.
> >>Don't punish everybody because a few folks aren't playing by the rules.
> >I agree, but the main problem would be legal. If you can't get the courts
> >to side with you, then you're sunk.
> Well, that's really not true. The main problem is economic. If you
> make it uneconomical for the "bad" people to behave the way they are,
> they will stop. You can do that by going through the courts, and
> obtaining a judgment, but that's quite possibly worse for you then it is
> for them -- even if you win.
> You can also go to the court of public opinion. How many of iEmulator's
> customers read /.? How many would still be customers if they found out
> that iEmulator rips off open-source code, which they could just as well
> use directly, and not pay thirty bucks for, to boot? I suspect enough
> of them that they will want to comply with the license, and avoid
I didn't think of that.
Of course, how many VMware users read slashdot? How many coperate execs?
How many Windows users?
This approach could work (and imnsho it is worth the risk) but Fabrice might
want something more substantial. At this point I've gone beyond second guessing
> >Presumably he's going to sell kqemu, and he is using this as a test run
> >he tries to sell the code to the big companies and get the megabucks. (At
> >that is what I would do.)
> That's a possibility. If that's true, then I hope the company that buys
> him out is very nice, or we're all going to be out a maintainer of an
> open source system emulator rather soon. I'd much rather that he sell
> out to the collective of his users rather then to some faceless
> corporate overlord who will make us all use a vmware clone, rather then
> an open source project I've become somewhat fond of.
> -=- James Mastros
> Qemu-devel mailing list
Infinite complexity begets infinite beauty.
Infinite precision begets infinite perfection.
Re: [Qemu-devel] FreeOSZoo will stop March 1, 2005, Jim C. Brown, 2005/02/12
[Qemu-devel] Re: FreeOSZoo will stop March 1, 2005, Robert Wittams, 2005/02/13
Re: [Qemu-devel] FreeOSZoo will stop March 1, 2005, Grzegorz Kulewski, 2005/02/12
- Re: [Qemu-devel] FreeOSZoo will stop March 1, 2005, James Mastros, 2005/02/12
- Re: [Qemu-devel] FreeOSZoo will stop March 1, 2005, Jim C. Brown, 2005/02/13
- Re: [Qemu-devel] FreeOSZoo will stop March 1, 2005, James Mastros, 2005/02/13
- Re: [Qemu-devel] FreeOSZoo will stop March 1, 2005, Darryl Dixon, 2005/02/13
- Re: [Qemu-devel] FreeOSZoo will stop March 1, 2005,
Jim C. Brown <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] FreeOSZoo will stop March 1, 2005, Herbert Poetzl, 2005/02/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] FreeOSZoo will stop March 1, 2005, Grzegorz Kulewski, 2005/02/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] FreeOSZoo will stop March 1, 2005, Fabrice Bellard, 2005/02/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] FreeOSZoo will stop March 1, 2005, John R. Hogerhuis, 2005/02/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] FreeOSZoo will stop March 1, 2005, Asko Kauppi, 2005/02/18
- Re: [Qemu-devel] FreeOSZoo will stop March 1, 2005, Elefterios Stamatogiannakis, 2005/02/18