Re: [oc] License issue about instset compatibility

[John Dalton <john.dalton@bigfoot.com>]

Let me start with the usual disclaimer:  I AM NOT A LAWYER!
so what I say is most likely pure rubbish.


A few pointers if producing a clone:

1) Do NOT give it a name which resembles the thing
you are cloning.

In fact a good strategy is to chose the exact opposite so
you get across the idea that the project is completely
dissociated from the original, but is vaguely related to
it.  In my opinion, one of the reasons the nnARM
project got pounced on was because their name was too close
to ARM, leaving themselves open to accusations of trademark
infringement.  Some better names could have been:

The LEG processor
The TINAA processor (TINAA = This Is Not An Arm)

As an aside, this was the strategy chosen by the GNU project:
GNU = "GNU is Not Unix", where Unix is the trademark of the
thing they were cloning.  You can't get much more explicit that,
saying straight out that your thing is NOT something else.


2) If possible, extend the thing being cloned so your implementation
is a superset of the original (and conversely the functionality of the
original is a subset of your functionality).

The aim of the patent system is to encourage innovation (despite
appearances to the contrary).  The idea is an inventor publishes
an invention (in exchange for a limited monopoly) so other inventors
can immediately start improving on the original invention (and take
out their own patents, if they want).  By improving and extending the
original you are doing exactly what the patents system is supposed to
encourage (and you can hardly be prosecuted for that?)

This was the strategy chosen by the programmers of 'ghostscript'.
Ghostscript is an improved version of postscript.  Extra features
have been added so postscript is a subset of ghostscript.


3) Do not base your implementation on material which is copyrighted
by the owners of the original.  In this way your work is not a derived
work of the original, so they cannot claim you have violated their
copyright.


4) There is also the wide open question of whether HDL is even covered
by a patent.  HDL stands for "Hardware DESCRIPTION Language".  That is,
a HDL source file is simply a description of an object.  It is NOT
the object itself.  Similarly a patent is a DESCRIPTION of the object
being patented.  It is not illegal to distribute a copy of a patent, so
why should it be illegal to distribute a copy of a HDL file?  Both are
just descriptions.  If a patent violation takes place, I would argue that
it occurs when a bitstream is uploaded to an FPGA, thereby creating
a REAL WORLD OBJECT, which is covered by a patent.

There is a famous painting which illustrates my point.  "Ceci n'est pas une pipe"
painted by Rene Magritte in 1926.  It may be viewed here:

http://bothner.udo.free.fr/pub/Xpics/magritte-la_trahison.jpg

The caption translates as "This is not a pipe".  The painter is making the
point that it is not a pipe, it is a PICTURE of a pipe.  (Eg. you can't
smoke it, pick it up, feel it's shape, or do any other actions associated
with pipes.)  In a similar way HDL is a picture of an object, not the
object itself.


Regards
John
--
To unsubscribe from cores mailing list please visit http://www.opencores.org/mailinglists.shtml