|
Message
From: Richard Herveille<richard@h...>
Date: Fri Jan 7 08:21:40 CET 2005
Subject: [oc] License
> > 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.
This is the way you see it. But that doesn't mattter.
All that matters is what will hold up in court.
Any I can argue that a chip, based on some piece of open source IP, is
derived from that piece of IP. And thus it is a derivative work.
This is exactly the point all these discussions are about.
It is not clear. You interpret it this way, I can argue/interpret it that
way.
We need a CLEAR license.
> > >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 ! :)
Eh? Que?
What's wrong with what I just stated??
> 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)
I am using BSD style licenses and I can assure you I am getting plenty of
feedback from commercial companies.
Cheers,
Richard
|
 |
Browse
