From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FUCIF-00039R-0r for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:36:11 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FUCID-00038X-Hj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:36:10 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FUCID-00038R-9G for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:36:09 -0400 Received: from [81.29.64.88] (helo=mail.shareable.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1FUCNd-00061j-EI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:41:45 -0400 Received: from mail.shareable.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.shareable.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k3E0Xduu029233 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 01:36:05 +0100 Received: (from jamie@localhost) by mail.shareable.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id k3BA5bD3031885 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:05:37 +0100 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:05:37 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] why is kqemu closed? Message-ID: <20060411100536.GC27657@mail.shareable.org> References: <41e41e7a0604100820y3a20e731n4fb22e14db01e54e@mail.gmail.com> <3ef9fbda81a71790b3cc0575ebf95538@localhost> <443A8033.9000409@win4lin.com> <443B32A6.20501@foo-projects.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > I do not think that kqemu benefits from being closed source, and probably more > > people with me. People will pick an open implementation before any closed one, > > even industry, they're picking up faster than you think ;^) > > > > I did not agree with kqemu being released without the proprietary flag, which > > is why I submitted the issue, and,if I can help it, it'll be open source or > > surpassed by something that is - no offense. > > This is BS. You are basically going into a restaurant and say: "I don't > think that lovely steak benefits from having a price tag. I do not agree > with having to pay for this steak, and if I can help it, it'll be for > free." > > Think about it. Fabrice does a wonderful job. Guess who's paying him. Besides, there is already an open source equivalent to kqemu, called kvm86, isn't there? I'm surprised it doesn't get more attention. Perhaps that indicates that people _don't_ pick the open implementation before the closed one, when the author is respected as much as Fabrice? -- Jamie