RE: [oc] Comments

[Joe Zott <jaz@itvc.com>]

I agree that "opencores" need to be open in the strictest sense -- that is
feasible. If you can't build chips from "opencores" then it is pointless.
If I can't sell chips that incorporate "opencore" technology then it isn't
worth my time to contribute. If we were talking software instead of
hardware then these things wouldn't be an issue. But hardware is different
than software.

Joe


At 11:45 AM 3/8/00 -0500, you wrote:
>We need to adopt a license and have that be the absolute end to it.  Unless
>you are planning on getting royalties for your work, there is no reason to
>not use something very similar to GPL.  
>
>I feel very strongly that if we are going to be making "opencores" they need
>to be open in the strictest sense.  And to me that says something like GPL.
>
>--Scott
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Victor the Cleaner [mailto:jonathan@canuck.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 9:24 AM
>To: cores@opencores.org
>Subject: Re: [oc] Comments
>
>
>> I apologize for not having digest version. We'll fix this in less than a
>> week.
>> 
>> regards, Damjan
>
>Thank you - I look forward to it.
>
>One other thing I forgot to mention.  With respect to the license terms,
>I strongly recommend adoption of the NetBSD license or similar.  I believe
>that core users must have the option of not releasing their source if 
>building a commercial product, and for that reason the GPL is a problem.
>
>Jonathan
>