hi everybody

i know that the cores mailinglist is not the best place for this
discussion but on opencores there is no better list and any other
place/project on the net is more or less sleeping (the license
disussion on opencollectors.org is death since 3 years...)

i'm working on a new fpga integrator board (small board for development
and to be integrated into the final product). in these context i gone
through all the licenses published on opensource.org last week to find
one that is usable for open/free hardware, like schematics, pcb files
and production data.

it was a bit frustrating, because all these software guys only thing
about software and none of theme thinks beyond one's own nose :-)

the traditional way is to use the creative commons license for these
things i want to license. during my search i realised that the new
GPLv3 is now usable "for software and any other work".

my idea is now to use the (L)GPLv3 for my whole board, from schematic to
the board support software.

my question now and the reason why i write here is:

have i understood the new GPLv3 right? is it realy so general applicable
as i think?

it would be nice to have a short discussion about these with people who
read some parts of the new (L)GPLv3.

greetings
christoph zimmermann

Hoi Christoph, On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:56:54 +0200 (CEST) nussgipfel at brain4free.org wrote:

Well, yes. But i can tell you that defining a license that works
equally well for hardware as GPL does for software is quite hard.
OHF is now struggling quite some time to come up with something
usable.



If you think you've understood GPLv3, read again ;-)

I've read the GPLv3 three times already, but i still have
the impression that i miss something important. The language
is for me as a non-native quite difficult to understand by itself.
On top of that come the legal issues and relations to other licenses.

My biggest concernes so far are that GPLv3 might not be GPLv2 compatible.
I cannot pinpoint why, but the whole text leaves that feeling.
I also have some doubts whether section 6 (non-Tivioization clause)
and section 11 (patents) solve more problems than they create.
I have the impression, that the FSF tries more to force their
religion onto other people than creating a clear, comprehensible
and generally working license that people just can use without
needing to put a lot of thought into it whether they might saw
off the branch they are sitting on.

IMHO i wouldn't use GPLv3 for now. Not until some time
has passed and there has been some explanation on how
this overly unintelligable license is to be interpreted.

Beside, the GPLv3 has still the same problems for hardware
as GPLv2 has. It still talks about linking programs and
combining work. They define some core system as license
boundary to be able to combine GPL system core with non-gpl
software and vice versa. Although that might also work for
hardware, there are many more levels involved. Ie, if you
do a GPL HDL design, is producing an ASIC using it a "linking"
operation in the software sense? Probably. But consider the
case where you have two ASICs on a board that are wired together,
one GPL the other not. Are they "linked" together? Probably not.
Now we put both ASICs into a multi chip package. Or we even
combine them on the same die. Is now the GPL violated? And
where is the limit when integration becomes "linking"?

And this problem repeats itself across the several layers
of electronics design (IP cores, die, package, board, system).

Gruess

Attila Kinali

--
Praised are the Fountains of Shelieth, the silver harp of the waters,
But blest in my name forever this stream that stanched my thirst!
-- Deed of Morred

This discussion keeps popping up. So far the only clean (as in non-controversial) license for hardware is a BSD style license. Why does everybody try to enforce (L)GPL style licenses on people? We are not developing software, we are developing hardware here. People should understand that hardware is more costly than software (in development, testing and production), therefore it should be fine for companies to use the code provided as they feel fit. Any license that is somewhat vague limits the usability of a core. Personally I don't mind what a user does with my cores. They can use them as they feel fit. And many of my cores have been implemented in ASICs, I know for sure as I receive testimonies of companies successfully using them. I also know for sure that part of the success is due to the simple and straightforward licensing scheme; -the core is provided as is -use at your own risk; do not sue me if it doesn't work -do not remove the disclaimer -do not remove the copyright No restrictions on reproduction, usability, or modifications. Richard -----Original Message----- From: cores-bounces at opencores.org [mailto:cores-bounces at opencores.org] On Behalf Of Attila Kinali Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:30 AM To: Discussion list about free open source IP cores Subject: Re: [oc] GPLv3 usable for open HW Hoi Christoph, On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:56:54 +0200 (CEST) nussgipfel at brain4free.org wrote:

Well, yes. But i can tell you that defining a license that works
equally well for hardware as GPL does for software is quite hard.
OHF is now struggling quite some time to come up with something
usable.

If you think you've understood GPLv3, read again ;-) I've read the GPLv3 three times already, but i still have the impression that i miss something important. The language is for me as a non-native quite difficult to understand by itself. On top of that come the legal issues and relations to other licenses. My biggest concernes so far are that GPLv3 might not be GPLv2 compatible. I cannot pinpoint why, but the whole text leaves that feeling. I also have some doubts whether section 6 (non-Tivioization clause) and section 11 (patents) solve more problems than they create. I have the impression, that the FSF tries more to force their religion onto other people than creating a clear, comprehensible and generally working license that people just can use without needing to put a lot of thought into it whether they might saw off the branch they are sitting on. IMHO i wouldn't use GPLv3 for now. Not until some time has passed and there has been some explanation on how this overly unintelligable license is to be interpreted. Beside, the GPLv3 has still the same problems for hardware as GPLv2 has. It still talks about linking programs and combining work. They define some core system as license boundary to be able to combine GPL system core with non-gpl software and vice versa. Although that might also work for hardware, there are many more levels involved. Ie, if you do a GPL HDL design, is producing an ASIC using it a "linking" operation in the software sense? Probably. But consider the case where you have two ASICs on a board that are wired together, one GPL the other not. Are they "linked" together? Probably not. Now we put both ASICs into a multi chip package. Or we even combine them on the same die. Is now the GPL violated? And where is the limit when integration becomes "linking"? And this problem repeats itself across the several layers of electronics design (IP cores, die, package, board, system). Gruess Attila Kinali -- Praised are the Fountains of Shelieth, the silver harp of the waters, But blest in my name forever this stream that stanched my thirst! -- Deed of Morred _______________________________________________ http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores

On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 16:01:34 +0200 "Richard Herveille" richard at herveille.net> wrote:

Because i want that if a company uses something i wrote, that
they give also something back. Yes, GPL might be not the right
thing (not even for software). But in the current world, where
it isn't hip for companies to share what they did with open source
software/hardware with the rest of the world, i'd like to have
some kind of protection that i might get something back.



Yes and no. Yes, we are developing hardware, yes, it' costs a
lot more to produce and distribute it. But i definitly do not
like to be ripped of by a company if i wrote something non-trivial.
I don't care if they use it, but i care if they make money with it
and do not give anything back.



ACK.

Attila Kinali

--
Praised are the Fountains of Shelieth, the silver harp of the waters,
But blest in my name forever this stream that stanched my thirst!
-- Deed of Morred

Richard Herveille wrote:


As far as I know the world's most successful open source designs are for
SPARC-derived processors, and all the Leon chips, OpenSparc etc are
under versions of the GPL.

So the distinction isn't in what's usable, it's in what the author's
intentions are.

Cheers
Graham

Richard Herveille wrote:


As far as I know the world's most successful open source designs are for
SPARC-derived processors, and all the Leon chips, OpenSparc etc are under
versions of the GPL.

So the distinction isn't in what's usable, it's in what the author's
intentions are.

Cheers
Graham

nussgipfel at brain4free.org wrote:

I closed the mailing list when I realised no-one was seriously interested in
the topic and I couldn't be bothered dealing with the spam levels for a dying
list.

Richard's point that the bsd is good enough is true in one way: if your goals
are those of the bsd, then you don't need a special license for hardware, use
the bsd or similar. It's only if you want something more that you have
problems; and then the problems aren't fundamentally legal (the odds on open
source designers actually sueing any big manufacturer are tiny) but social:
what do you want to use the license to push users towards doing, and how
practical is it. For me it was always providing end user repair/interfacing
information with the manufactured end device, but most people seem to have
other goals more closely connected with the source of the design (eg.
requiring publishing of derivatives) which are the same as those of free
software writers. I always had trouble understanding quite how that's
supposed to work for hardware designs. And also whether there is such a thing
as a generic 'hardware design' which a single license will always fit.

If you want a license discussion mailing list back, I don't mind doing it, if
people have something new to say :-)

Graham

As far as I know the world's most successful open source designs are for
SPARC-derived processors, and all the Leon chips, OpenSparc etc are
under versions of the GPL.
[rih] SPARC itself isn't released under a GPL license, and the newer LEON
processors aren't released under a GPL license either (LEON V3 is).

So the distinction isn't in what's usable, it's in what the author's
intentions are.
[rih] Yes, of course.
I want my cores to be used, so ... ;)

Richard


Cheers
Graham


as
_______________________________________________ http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores

[rih] Everybody has their own reasons, and nobody should judge another on
their motives. It all comes down to what you expect and desire.



Because i want that if a company uses something i wrote, that
they give also something back. Yes, GPL might be not the right
thing (not even for software). But in the current world, where
it isn't hip for companies to share what they did with open source
software/hardware with the rest of the world, i'd like to have
some kind of protection that i might get something back.
[rih] Personally I get angry when companies borrow code from open source
designs and then attack the same open source community they so conveniently
took the original sources from.


Yes and no. Yes, we are developing hardware, yes, it' costs a
lot more to produce and distribute it. But i definitly do not
like to be ripped of by a company if i wrote something non-trivial.
I don't care if they use it, but i care if they make money with it
and do not give anything back.
[rih] What do you mean by 'ripped off'? Do you want a share of the profit?
Then GPL is definitely not your thing. I (and many others) make money from
providing design services. Providing cores without restrictions offers a
stepping stone for companies to use them. I then make money on customer
specific modifications and additional support.
I don't see any other way to make a profit out of this.

Richard



ACK. Attila Kinali -- Praised are the Fountains of Shelieth, the silver harp of the waters, But blest in my name forever this stream that stanched my thirst! -- Deed of Morred _______________________________________________ http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores

[rih] SPARC itself isn't released under a GPL license, [GS] I wrote OpenSparc, not Sparc: http://opensparc-t1.sunsource.net/gpl_v2.html [rih] and the newer LEON processors aren't released under a GPL license either (LEON V3 is). [GS] I thought Leon 3 was the latest? It's certainly still the flagship on the front page: http://www.gaisler.com/cms/ and it is gpl

[rih] Yes, of course. I want my cores to be used, so ... ;)

[GS] Well, I guess if you have the fame and lack of patent problems of Sparc
then you have the freedom to pick your license...

Best
Graham
PS I've rejoined from my current mail address but for some reason it's not
working, nor will the system let me cancel my subscription from the old
address. So I'm cut and pasting bits in a convoluted way to get round it,
apologies if I'm messing up peoples threading readers..

Richard

Richard Herveille wrote:


TAPR open hardware license is one that asks for something back without being a big burden.
They ask for communication attempts about modifications that are distributed, and if
the attempt by email fails, that ends that obligation. The form of design details
communicated is left unspecified and does not have to be complete in some rigorous way.

Their intent is to gather up any safety or performance related improvements
made by downstream users/ddevelopers.

John Griessen
Ecosensory

thanks for all these answers and comments.

i see that the question about licensing hardware designs is still a hot
topic. and the discussions are far away from the software comunities
where it is now more a ideologic discussion where it is here still the
question: can i use this license? what is "software" in my hardware
project? or do we need a own license? and do i prohibit the normal use
of hardware (production/selling/...)?

attila:
"> > have i understood the new GPLv3 right? is it realy so




yes i read it more then one time and decided to ask some other people
to be shure :-)

i have more or less still the same confusion as on the beginning,
because my intial problem was, that i don't have, in my opinion,
software to license. i have a design of a fpga integrator board which i
would like to license in an open/free matter.

so i change at this point of the discussion my question a bit:
which licenses are usable for works like schematics, pcb files, gerber
files?



thanks for john to bring the TAPR ohl license to this discussion, i
never heard from it before.


for me personaly it is an important thing that when you made somthing
complex and you made it free/open that something comes back when
someone make something new whith it or make an improvement. like in
science.
but this of course a personal descision.


christoph zimmermann

On Friday 03 August 2007 20:25:57 Christoph Zimmermann wrote:
I wonder if any of the creative commons licenses would be suitable? Seeing that these can be considered "images"? Cheers -- with metta, Shawn Tan Aeste Works (M) Sdn Bhd - Engineering Elegance http://www.aeste.net

Shawn Tan wrote:



The TAPR OHL goes beyond images and copyright -- it demands that those who benefit from it
do not sue for patent infringement. Ordinarily, you can claim as much as you like about
copyright on text and images and still get sued for patent infringement and shut down.

John Griessen
Ecosensory

Regarding licensing to use for a HW design, I believe if none of the licences that are out there satisfy you, then you could actually license your work under a new license you come up with. I do not really know much about this, but I don't think there is an authority that keeps or manages "licences", like they do patents. If the GPL license is not good for you, modify it to include what you want, and distribute your work with that new license. The good thing about GPL and other "mature" licenses is that they've had legal experience and add the things needed to achieve their goals based on te experience they have. If you write your oun license it will probably have more "gray" areas, more holes, etc. The good thing is that in a new license you could specify "what" you want whoever uses your library to give back. It probably isn't money, I believe you're more interested in that more IP and "know-how" are given back. But you could say that if a company does not want to provide their work back they must donate X amount of money to OpenCores. Specify this in detail and distribute your product with that license. It might grow and mature to become the next de-facto open license for HW designs. Take care, Guillermo Guichal ----- Original Message ----- From: Graham Seamangraham at o...> To: Date: Thu Aug 2 15:52:07 CEST 2007 Subject: [oc] GPLv3 usable for open HW