Re: [oc] Inquiry

[Richard Herveille <richard@asics.ws>]

>
> > If OpenCores sees a role to play in this game, we need a license that is
> > = clear=20
> > and allows companies to use it.
>
> Yes.  Clear and simple and short.  I need to be able to say to my boss
> "The licence works this way" in two or three sentences.  If I need to
> give a legal exegesis (like the previous posting on the GPL), he will
> throw me out of his office.
>
> > This does NOT mean that companies can do=20
> > whatever they want with the code, nor does it imply that companies do
> > not= =20
> > have to return improvements. That might be part of the license.
>
> Well, then you have a non-starter, at least for corporate users.   The
> licence cannot impose any conditions and cannot mandate that you
> return improvements.  Sadly, many corporations are not interested in
> returning their improvements, 'cause the improvements are their
> value-added.  Of course, some corps *will* return improvements in
> order to build goodwill, or as a loss-leader, or for whatever reason.
> And bully for them!  But not all corporations will want to do return
> improvements.  A licence which allows you to do whatever you want,
> including returning improvements or not, is the only way to break into
> corporations.
>
> If you impose restrictions, then Opencores will remain on the sidelines,
> serving the hobbyist, grad student, and small-consultant market.
> And that's the current market position -- i.e. problem -- with Opencores.
>

This means the BSD license. Very simple, very short:

"
This is the core. Use it as you please, without removing the 
copyright/disclaimer header. Don't come back whining (and certainly don't sue 
me) when it's not working.
"
Short and clear enough?

Richard


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