LOGIN   :::   RECOVER PASS   :::   GET ACCOUNT    
Browse
  • Projects
  • Code (CVS)
  • Forums
  • News
  • Articles
  • Polls
  •  
    OpenCores
  • FAQ
  • CVS HowTo
  • Mission
  • Media
  • Tools
  • Advertise
  • Mirrors
  • Logos
  • Contact us
  • Job Opportunity
  •  
    Tools
  • Search
      
  • Download Cores (CVSGet)
  •  
    More
  • Wishbone
  • Perlilog
  • EDA tools
  • OpenTech CD
  •  
    Navigation: All forums > Cores > Message List > Message Post

    Message

    Reply | Reply all
    Date Prev | Date Next | Thread Prev | Thread Next Date Index | Thread Index

    From: Jecel Assumpcao Jr<jecel@m...>
    Date: Tue Jan 11 13:51:35 CET 2005
    Subject: [oc] License
    Top
    Nicolas Boulay wrote on Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:33:32 +0100
    > i learn a lot but how could explain that a patent could be a solution ?
    >
    > Patent cost money !

    You are absolutely right. Even worse: a patent is only valid in the
    particular country that granted it. Even taking advantage of the PCT
    (http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/) to reduce costs for filing in foreign
    countries you can't hope to spend less than $50K just to cover your key
    markets.

    In contrast copyrights are free and valid internationally. Another
    problem with patents is that if you do get one, IBM and others will have
    many thousands. It is silly to get into a fight with them (like Patriot
    Scientific is doing over the ShBoom Forth chip patent).

    But patents allow you to control people who try to build and sell
    hardware using your designs and copyright doesn't.

    So what can be done? We have two cases:

    - people who want to allow unrestricted commercial use of their cores

    In that case there is no attempt to control the use, so a variation of
    the BSD license is good enough. It uses copyright to make sure everyone
    who gets a copy of the core agrees not to sue the author (not quite -
    actually just those who distribute copies, but close enough in
    practice).

    - people who want to force companies using their cores to contribute
    back any improvements they make

    The GPL won't do this, as I explained in the previous email. You have to
    force each person receiving the core into a contract with you, and not
    just those who are distributing it.

    One solution is to have a closed group so that you have to agree to some
    terms before joining the group and only then can you get a copy of the
    core. Copyright law will keep you from distributing it to anyone not
    belonging to the group. This is what Sun did with the PicoJava and
    MicroSparc cores, for example. I have a copy but I can't give it to you.
    Sun came under harsh criticism for calling this "open hardware", but in
    practice you can easily join the group and get a copy from Sun instead
    of me. The problem is that you have to trust them not to stop doing this
    in the future, while truly free solutions don't allow the author to
    change his mind.

    On the Open Cores website I noticed that some cores are easily
    downloaded anonymously while others require you to log in before you can
    get them. This could be easily expanded to something similar to what Sun
    did (not that I am suggesting it - just pointing out a possibility).

    So the solution to using copyright to enforce some terms on the *use* of
    a core is to forbid people who have a copy from giving one to anybody
    who has not agreed to those terms. Copyright doesn't even allow them to
    distribute to those who have agreed, but the contract can allow that. If
    someone is using the core in conditions not permitted by the contract
    then they are either in violation of that contract themselves and can be
    sued or they got a copy without agreeing to the contract and the person
    who gave it to them is in violation and can be sued.

    Personally, I prefer the BSD route. Previously I had seriously
    considered the use of two patents (just one would be too risky since it
    can be judged to be invalid, while more than two would be far too
    expensive) to force people to contribute back any improvements (or to
    negotiate an alternative license with me and pay royalties). Now I am
    thinking of a scheme were the cores are kept secret until the next
    version is ready, then the previous version would be released under a
    BSD-like license. I am not happy with this (which is similar to how
    GhostScript is licensed) but it seems to strike a balance between my
    need to make some money and my wish to make it available to others
    without restrictions.

    No single solution will make everybody happy here. But having eight
    different solutions (licenses) is sure to make us all unhappy. So we
    should review the basics and then create a few (probably two; at most
    three) standard alternatives with reasonably well understood
    consequences.

    -- Jecel

    ReferenceAuthor
    [oc] LicenseNicolas Boulay

     
    Copyright (c) 1999 OPENCORES.ORG. All rights reserved.