Re: [oc] New License update

[bob.cousins@philips.com]

>3. It is expensive to build chips - Even a multiproject fab is going to
>cost $10k. If we want to see chips containing open hardware IP then we need
>to respect commercial interests.

Hey, it is expensive to write software too.

On the flip side you could say that if companies want to use open hardware designs
then they should respect the requirements of open IP. If for sake of example, I contribute
a design, and then some company goes and makes chips incorporating it, I am
not going to make any money from it, but the chip company will, so who should
be making the compromises?

It sounds like the same argument from the early days of GNU, which was if companies
can't own their changes, then how are they going to make money? The answer
is they adopt a business model where they can make money without needing to
own the IP. GNU software is ported to new CPUs, and these changes are
required to be made public. I see no difference in principle with a hardware
design being implemented on a specific process.

Companies make you sign NDAs just because their name is on top of
the document. Often there is very little in the document that is not well known.
I just don't buy the argument "we've got to keep it secret to make money".

Personally I would be very reluctant to contribute a design if a company
could change a few things to suit their process, and effectively make
it a closed design.

It is either open or its closed - there is no half-open.
-- 
Bob Cousins
Software Engineer.
"Beginning and end are part of a single ring and no one can comprehend
its principle. " - Chuang Tzu