|
Message
From: Víctor López<victor.lopez@o...>
Date: Thu Jan 6 16:51:16 CET 2005
Subject: [oc] License
It looks like there is much controversy on the license subject and anybody who has read the GPL or LGPL in our community doesn't see a clear way on how to make it fit with HW cores, so I see at least a need to clarify this. I personally agree with the line of Mr. Usselmann.There is much discussion about compatibility between licenses but I think many of us are still thinking in SW terms. Let's think of a company who releases an ASIC with three components, one of them is GPL'ed, other one is modified BSD and the other one is propietary. What incompatibility is there here? First, the GPL license doesn't fit for HW purposes because nobody agrees on what should this company have to do to use the GPL, their own component is theirs, even if it is the top entity and inside it there is the GPL or BSD component. Are they bound by GPL to publish their core code? What do we want with open cores? 1) We publish the source code to allow anybody use our cores in any design providing the HW implementations carry in the manual/cd the license (copyrigth notice, disclaimer,...). With this we would be faithful to the mission statement, to provide open cores, and also author's names would be there (important for starting up IP companies as it is "free" publicity) 2) An approach closer to that of the SW community, that is, to provide open cores, requiring that any implementation that use the core must supply source code and (GPL is draconian on this from a HW perspective) GPL the whole source code of the ASIC! Which company would accept this? Anyways, does it make sense for us (and this applies for both GPL and LGPL) to require the core user to provide our source code? which end user will care about it? isn't it enough to have besides the author's name a link to opencores.org? And what if the company modifies the core, even if it is only the interface? do they have to publish that code? in the case of GPL and LGPL they must open source the modified code (although this is not as clear as needed in this "SW library licenses"). Aren't we unknowingly making enterprises not use our open cores just because the licenses we use are not clear? Inmy personal opinion, I don't think that any enterprise that modifies a core would be willing to make this modified core open source. I think right now GPL is out of the question for HW. And LGPL is not clear enough to anybody in the HW community, just take a look at all the messages that this issue is arising, each one with a different opinion. I must remark that we are talking about legal issues, it IS important. I would like to have two different licenses. One which allows unlimited commercial use of a core and another one who just allows educational and research use (not for profit). There are two subjects posed in the mailing list that still haven't been answered: What Richard (RT) wrote:
>a) Your obligations if you 'use' the unmodified code
>b) Your obligations if you 'use' 'modified' code.
What Mr. Herveille wrote:
>As an addition to Rudi's points, we need to define a derivative work.
>In my opinion the final derivative work is a finished chip. The
>documentation of the chip should clearly provide credits and the disclaimer.
>So if anybody uses a chip containing open source IP on a board, the board's
>documentation does not need to provide credits and the disclaimer.
Regards,
Víctor López Lorenzo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: attachment.htm
|
Browse
