Re: [oc] New License update

[Rudolf Usselmann <rudi@asics.ws>]

Bob, 

very wel summarized !

I totally agree with that !

Lets adopt GPL !

rudi



on 9/26/00 17:32, bob.cousins@philips.com at bob.cousins@philips.com wrote:
>> 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.