|
Message
From: Giacomo Bernardi<bernardi.giacomo@t...>
Date: Sun Jan 9 13:02:50 CET 2005
Subject: [oc] License
I can't understand very well why the hardware would require a different
license from software.
The GPL license, and the LGPL too, defends not only the rights of the
author, but especially the rights of the author as a part of a community.
The obligations to exhibits the name of the author defends the author,
but the obligation to contribute back all the changes and the enhancements
defends the community, that has the possibility to use a product(cores) which
quality is maintained always high by the customers of the product.
If we discard the importance of contribuiting back the changes i think that
in the future the cores of opencores could be only a bad copy of the same
core commercially used.
An example is the spice program of Berkeley. It was first developed at
Berkeley and realesed with BSD license.
Now only students ( and not always ) can use Spice3f5 of Berkeley, but
every one who would to start a commercial project must buy a spice simulator
from a software house that has build his spice simulator beginning from the
spice of Berkeley.
Which is the gain of the community in this case?
I think that this point is crucial, because it must be decided if the open
hardware ( as the open software alrerady do ) must realize a bigger opening
of the markets to the people or constituting an advantage for the company that
are already in the market.
Anyway i understand that the GPL is not advantagious for any situation because
who decide to use a core from opencores can' t give all proprietary work.
But what' s wrong in LGPL?
|
 |
Browse
