Re: [oc] New License update

[Jamil Khatib <jamilkhatib75@yahoo.com>]

Hi,
> 
> > 1. This license is based on LGPL where so based
> works
> > and derivative works can be under any license.
> 
> With respect, you are wrong on this (fundamental)
> point
> Jamil.  Section 2 c) of the LGPL requires any
> derived works to
> be distributed under the terms of the LGPL.  The
> LGPL is different
> from the GPL in that it allows linking to non-free
> code.

I agree with you on this point but I think it will not
be easy to implement the hardware from the design
files without any modification "at least after
testing" which is again makes it very difficult for
companies to implement it.

> 
> A GPL style license would prohibit combining free
> and non-free
> blocks in a design.  Hence non-free and free
> circuits could not live
> in the same chip.  A LGPL style license would still
> require changes
> to be distributed, but would allow free and non-free
> blocks to be
> on the same chip.

For me I prefere the GPL "no miximng between free and
non-free hw" but this is not reasonable these days
because we can not implement the systems alone like
the software, may be in the future we can download
hardware cores from the internet and program them on
FPGA system, in this case we can use pure GPL.

> 
> > this change is upon request from commercial
> > community so as to enable them to implement the
> > open source design which may need some changes for
> the
> > implementation that can not be revealed by them.
> 
> This opens up some deep philosophical questions,
> which
> are discussed at length on the Free Software
> Foundation's
> site (www.gnu.org).  One needs to ask the question
> 'why
> am I doing this?'  Of course different people will
> have
> different answers.  For me, part of the answer is to
> make people realize that a culture of secrecy is
> counterproductive.

I agree with you just take a look at the links to
other license page in the openipcore site.


> 
> > 2. we need another license like the old one to put
> > more restrictions on the derived and based works
> 
> I Agree.  Ultimately it is the designer's choice
> which
> license they use.  If multiple licences are
> provided,
> with plain English explanations of the implications
> of each, time will tell which, if any, approach is
> preferred.
> 
> > yes I am not a lawyer
> 
> Neither am I.  I am just very interested in the
> area,
> as I think a decent license is the foundation on
> which
> an open or free system is built (in the absence of
> assuming everyone gives as they receive).
> 
> > the GPL protects only programs which is not our
> case.
> >
> > Anyhow the openhardware protection is more
> complecated
> > than that because here we provide a copyright
> > protection for the design files only and so we can
> not
> > restrict anyone from implementing the design
> itself
> > which should be covered by patents or NDA
> 
> Agree.  It is not yet clear in my mind what legal
> foundation opencores has.
> 
> As you say, I do not think it is possible to
> restrict
> anyone from implementing a design, or rewriting
> a design to circumvent any copyright on it.
> 
> A design can be protected with a patent, but I do
> not think
> patent make sense for a free design.  If you are
> going to
> release rights to a patent, why not just claim prior
> art?
> 
> I would think that, with possible minor
> modifications of wording, the
> GPL could cover anything which can be copyrighted. 
> Perhaps
> someone can produce a generic version of the GPL,
> which
> can be applied directly to any type of file?
> 
> The problem is not that the GPL is inadequate for
> designs, but that
> copyright does not protect designs.  I would assert
> that the GPL
> can provide the maximum possible protection
> available under copyright.

I agree with you on these facts but at least we have
to let open hw designers know it

> 
> Maybe the way to go is a two pronged approach:
> 1) GPL to cover the design sources.
> 2) Claiming prior art to prevent patent restrictions
> on implementation.
> 
> Of course this does not prevent someone from selling
> implementations
> of a design, or rewriting a design to avoid
> copyright.  Assuming freedom
> 
> of design, in my view, anyone is quite entitled to
> do either of these
> things.  In fact the GNU project relies on having
> these rights.  GNU
> works because:
> 1) Competition keeps the price of an implementation
> to a minimum.
> 2) The time taken to rewrite a design makes option 2
> commercially
> unattractive.
> 
> If opencores has a downfall, it could be these two
> points.
> 
> 
> I hope this is a positive contribution to the
> discussion.
> 
> Regards
> John Dalton
> 
Thanks for your comments
Regards
Jamil Khatib


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/