[openip] Re: [f-cpu] F-CPU licence

[Jamil Khatib <jamilkhatib75@yahoo.com>]

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hi,
You have some good points and I have some comments for
you.
What I want is to make a generic protection schem for
all OpenHW designs.
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Jamil Khatib wrote:

> I am going to update the OpenIPCore hardware license
> with some items from your license to make it more
> generic for OpenHW designs.
yo ! is it already fame or what ? ;-P

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The license still under development so that why we
should work together to get good protection schem "Not
only license"

Protection Vs. Freedom:
What I want to emphasize on is that want to make Free
Open HW design but we should not allow anyone to make
use of it to monopolize or to claim the design as its
own. We have to know who did this and that yet every
thing is open and free. we should not allow any one to
sell the design as a work that others did "even if he
contributed to it" he can get money on the expenses he

made for copying or implementation. "I am going to
elaborate on this later on this email"

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
one remark anyway : i try to remain unafiliated with
OpenCores/OpenIPCores etc simply because i don't feel
that it's the way i see things. This is purely a
personal
opinion,

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Do not worry
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Part of it is that we slowly realize
that we don't need "that much" funding to get
something
cool working. Time is what's lacking (we all work or
study at the same time), not money.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You are right
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

My point (part of it) is that we don't need to open a
business,
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Why not we can do it like Redhat!!!
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

just be organised and active is enough. We don't need
to be
"open" be "free" (in a sense, similar to the open vs
free war
in the SW branch). there is no war here, just claims
(mine at least)

On Opencores there are things that i don't really get.

OIPC/licgoals.shtml, License Objectives :

<li>Anyone can manufactor the hardware design 
<li>Anyone can customize the hardware design for his
needs
<li>Anyone can transfer and modify the hardware
design.
<li>All changes and modifications should be made
public and availalbe 
for anyone.
<li>The license should restrict the commercial income
of the hardware 
products
<li>The license should be applied to new works and
derivative works

i don't get the sense and goal of the 5) : IF F-CPU
group is mainly in 
charge of
the IP and its coherency, what would be the economical
advantage of limiting
the price of the chips ? it is not legal (i think) and
goes against the freedom of competition.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What I ment here is that no one should sell the design
as is "the same as in GPLed SW you can not sell it as
is". 

You can distribute it with the cost of distribution
not cost of design time because it is not belong to
anyone.

You can Implement it but also you can get teh cost of
implementation not the design.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

or:
OIPC/license.shtml

OpenIP Hardware License is divided into two licenses:
one a la GNU GPL 
and one a la GNU LGPL.
YG----> In the f-cpu utopic world, meant to run any
GPL'd OS, i see no 
reason to have a second weakened licence, or open to
proprietary vices. All the codes i write is under GPL
for a few years.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There Should be two kinds of protections a la GPL and
LGPL each one has its uses and it depends on the
design and the designer thats why Leon-II is LGPLed
because I think they want to allow porting for many
OS's to it.

In my openian first designs should be LGPLed because
we need more popularity.

Try to read the article about GPL vs LGPL and when to
use each on. You can find it in GNU.org or check a
link for it in OpenIPCore articles page.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Basic Licesne terms:
<li> Designs can be altered while keeping list of
modifications " the 
same as in GNU "
<li> No money can be earned by selling the designs
them selves, but anyone can get money by selling the
implementation of the design, such as ICs based on
some 
cores, Boards based on some schematics or Layouts, and
even GUI interfaces to text mode  drivers. " The same
as GPL SW"
<li> Any update to the design should be documented and
returned to the design.
YG----> i'm less enthusiastic for this third term : i
would place it as "recommended", not "obligatory",
because some projects (and particularly F-CPU) might
fork at one point or another.
This way, anybody can take a "lead" on one point,
instead of wasting his energy with version checking
etc...
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes I agree with you only if this forked project
aknowledge the original source, but if he got the idea
then designed it in another way it will be new design,
which lead us to the Intelectual properties laws and
patents how to define such work. 
Anyhow all suche forked designs should be Open Free
HW. 

Regarding the term Foked projects, I think it is
similar to derived work based on the original design.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<LI> Any derivative work based on the IP should be
free under OpenIP 
License.<br>
Derivative work means any update, change or
improvement on the design
<LI> Any work based on the design can be either made
free under OpenIP licnese or protected by any other
licnese.<BR>
Work based on the design means any work uses the
OpenIP Licnesed core as a building black without
changing anything on it with any other blocks to
produce larger design.

There, i get worried. ok, i know, reality always
catches you back, but this is a little pun
in the F-CPU philosophy, in a rather
conservative/religious/GNU sense. 
I have nothing against
mixing chips from different makers with different
licences, but the GOAL, damnit, the GOAL
is to have a FREE (in the spirit) platform. I see the
work of OpenCores as valuable because it
helps transition from a proprietary model to a free
one, but for the F-CPU i couldn't accept
that a free work would be spoilt by an obscure
technology, even if the core is not modified.
Unless i read the things in the wrong sense ? please
help me.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This is why we shouold have different kind of
protection methods mainly a la GPL and LGPL.
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<LI> There is <b>NO WARRANTY</b> on the functionality
or preformance of the design on the real hardware
implementation.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You are right we do not have any problem with the NO
WARRANTY on the design it self but teh implementation
shoould has
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In France, selling something without warranty is
illegal, but F-CPU is 
safe because it doesn't sell
it :-) the distribution company is then in charge of
respecting this 
law, ie change the device if
there's a flaw. 

Ok, this rant is over, let's move to the other one :

> My comments are:
> 
> > Devices. This generalisation includes the
principles and ideas 
behind
> > the architectures, all the necessary files in
their respective 
formats
> > (including but not limited to : VHDL, Verilog,
RTL, scripts, 
pictures,
> > texts, test vectors...).
> 
> All these items are copyrightable, so you can use
the
> GPL directly.

one point here. but the GNU GPL is aimed toward code,
what i wanted to point is that it is not only code
here.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You are right
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > The scope of this licence stops when it comes to
physical 
process-dependent
> > parameters that do not directly influence the
performance
> > or the price of the final product. The thickness
of the metal 
layers,
> > their chemical composition or the deposition
details do not 
directly
> > influence the overall architecture in the general
case. Otherwise, 
the
> > implementor must specify the critical parameters
that were used to
> > fabricate the chip and modify the architecture, so
the 
implementation
> > can be reproduced.
> 
> I agree with you that there should be no restriction
> on the type of implementation but will you allow
> everyone to implement it?

why should we restrict anybody from making a F-CPU ?
Intel or Motorola can make one, if they want, as long
as they respect
the licence. the more, the happier.
well i know no Microsoft software released under GPL,
but we can
hope anyway ? :-) (IBM and others do it already...)

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You are right I hope you got my point on the
implementation and the price of the Final HW that does
not include R&D cost because it is shared by many
designers all over the world.
Anyhow your license does not say anything on the
implementation, here we are talking about HW not SW
unless the target is Programmable logic devices.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

remember that the name is "freedom", we don't compete
the usual way,
it's more like a cooperation and everyone should be
judged on objective
things. If you don't respect the licence or its
intent, then you are
banning yourself...

> > The general principle is that one can read the GPL
and replace 
"software"
> > with "F-CPU Intellectual Property". A chip, a
final product derived
> > from the IP or any material implementation is
considered as a 
"distribution"
> > when compared to the software world. Hardware has
a price, has 
fabrication,
> > transportation and marketing constraints but all
the informations 
that
> > constitute the IP can be easily spread through
electronic media. A
> > "distribution" also has the obvious constraint to
be complete and
> > working, otherwise it is still considered as a
"source" ans is 
freely shared.
> >
> > Like GPL'ed software, the IP files can be sold on
a physical media
> > (that is : CD-ROM, diskette, magnetic tape or
similar persistent 
medium)
> > under the condition that the same data are also
available for free
> > download on the Internet (with ftp or http). This
is consistent 
with the
> > fact that all IP is freely available without
restriction (cf : the 
following
> > chapter).
> >
> >
> > Rights and duties :
> > -------------------
> >
> > - The distribution, modification and knowledge of
the sources
> > (non physical forms of the IP, as opposed to the
"implementation"
> > of this IP) must not be bound or restricted in ANY
way.
> 
> but what about selling it? he/she should not include
> the cost of R&D only the cost of implementaion like.
> In the software distribution you can sell them with
no
> more than the cost of cdrom and packaging.

i don't get it here...

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I hope you got it now
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
let's rephrase it. maybe the definitions weren't clear
enough ?

fredom is also having some choice (no monopoly, you
know ?)
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thats the main point. but I am with design
monopolizing not monopolizing the design where the
design holds the monopoly because of its power not a
company that holds the monopoly because of its power.
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

When it becomes interesting, is when the business
comes in : a company can
propose to sell a CDROM (see OC's CD)

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Are you talking about the OpenCores cdrom? OpenTech as
we call it. I hope it will help our concepts
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

 or a service around the IP, but like with the GPL,
the IP itself is not sold. BUT this is not a reason 
for
keeping the IP away from those who don't want to pay
the service. ok ?
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thats what I want, you are right.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

> > In particular, you need not to be a customer of a
F-CPU vendor in 
order
> > to access the sources of any F-CPU version or
derived work.
> > Similarly, in-progress works must be available
upon a single 
request.

i'll add that over-delaying is a sign of guilt ... but
let's remain 
peaceful :-)


|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

> ===========================
> 
> The reason for this break from the GPL principle is
simple : the 
F-CPU
> is not the property of an individual or a company,
but belongs to
> everybody. Anybody must be able to examine, use or
modify any version
> of any document because it is not the exclusive
property of a person.
> If you have your kid in a kindergarten, you think it
is normal to
> visit the location and see if your kid is safe or if
nothing wrong
> happened. Same goes with software. Secrecy has no
advantage in the
> F-CPU community and corresponds to a self-exclusion
from the group.
> 


Jamil Khatib

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
http://photos.yahoo.com