|
Message
From: Philipp Klaus Krause<pkk@s...>
Date: Thu Jan 6 17:33:53 CET 2005
Subject: [oc] License
Víctor López schrieb:>
> 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).
You reject the GPL saying that no company will accept it, but propose
a new license that does not allow commercial use?
Philipp
|
 |
Browse
