|
Message
From: Nicolas Boulay<nico@s...>
Date: Thu Jan 6 22:58:46 CET 2005
Subject: [oc] License
Le jeudi 6 Janvier 2005 16:51, Víctor López a écrit :
> 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?
>
This is a very bad example. Because, if the A component is relesead under GPL,
B component under modified BSD, C closed.
Where is the problem ?
So A and C could not be put together ? But you own the copyright of both
code ! So you do what you want with you're code ! Like Trollteck that sell
non GPL licence for Qt.
> 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)
cf. all the problem around such "advertising close". Does every body that put
some code there could ask to add there name ? (i speak about puting rule in
licence, GPL does not force this but there is often contributors file, there
is also the copyright owners name)
>
> 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,
GPL is very very strong. That's why LGPL is prefered but LGPL did not give
well the border.
GPL cover only derivative form of work. So if you use an open core under GPL +
old closed stuff. This can't be a derivative work so it must not be under
GPL.
If you create some new closed core beside the GPL, it's quite unclear. If you
create a MMU conform to OPENRISC spec (and if Openrisc was under GPL), your
code have no sense without the openrisc cores. So this bloc must be GPL. If
you build an fft calculus bloc, it could be used elsewhere it's quite
unrelated to a open cpu core.
But ok, it's not so evident.
> 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
This obligation from GPL is to make it easy. It also avoid that a compagny
improved you're code and say that could access the code on a listing but you
could only access it in a small chinese village.
> 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.
legal stuff are always complexe. If you are not afraid about losing your
liberty to keep your code open, choose the public domain.
>
> I think right now GPL is out of the question for HW. And LGPL is not clear
An asic using a GPL code seems complexe. At least, with the usual
understanding of the GPL.
But releasing GPL code could able to sell licence of non gpl version and
create a compagny with that. (like trolltech,...)
> 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.
Sure it's quite easy to create free software : public domain does it.
The real question is : what kind of "freedom protection" do you want ?
None -> bsd like licence,
A strong one -> a GPL like one
>
> 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).
>
The second one is not free software at all. If you want make compagnies paid,
use GPL licence.
> 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
no, a derivative work is a modified version of the code.
The GDSII file, .sdf and other are "results". The status of the final chip is
quite special : it's a tangible thing so not cover by copyright law. But it
still a result of copyright material.
> >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.
Please, no flame like in the X11 project ! :)
In fact, we need a laywer to say firmely if LGPL and GPL is suitable to
hardware. If not, then we could create yet an other open source licence...
In fact, we need 2 kinds of licence. BSD one and LGPL like one to make every
one happy. (i never wrote code that a compagny could reused without
contributing back, there contribution is for me the little fee to use my
code, that's quite few comparre to usual closed licence)
>
> Regards,
>
> Víctor López Lorenzo
|
 |
Browse
