OpenCores

OpenCores

GPLv3 usable for open HW

First

Prev

2/2

no use

no use

GPLv3 usable for open HW by Unknown on Aug 6, 2007			Not available!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 <A HREF="http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores">gguichal at ieee.org</A> schrieb: [q] 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.[/q] License proliferation is bad, should be avoided if possible; most licenses are incompatible. The free hardware community is probably too small to afford this. There already are cores released under GPLv2, so if you really want to create a new license make it at least compatible with GPLv2. Suppose you want to create a SoC from free cores and can't because of incompatible licenses. You'll have to reimplement most of them losing an advantage free stuff (software, hardware, whatever) should give you. Philipp -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - <A HREF="http://enigmail.mozdev.org">http://enigmail.mozdev.org</A> iD8DBQFGt3iqbtUV+xsoLpoRAvcAAKDX0vMbInXNu0kqm5uA/v1sbf0jEwCguIW9 3vBbM7QVhaugn1hswf4MAZU= =eG/P -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 gguichal at ieee.org schrieb: 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. License proliferation is bad, should be avoided if possible; most licenses are incompatible. The free hardware community is probably too small to afford this. There already are cores released under GPLv2, so if you really want to create a new license make it at least compatible with GPLv2. Suppose you want to create a SoC from free cores and can't because of incompatible licenses. You'll have to reimplement most of them losing an advantage free stuff (software, hardware, whatever) should give you. Philipp -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGt3iqbtUV+xsoLpoRAvcAAKDX0vMbInXNu0kqm5uA/v1sbf0jEwCguIW9 3vBbM7QVhaugn1hswf4MAZU= =eG/P -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

GPLv3 usable for open HW by Unknown on Aug 7, 2007			Not available!
Quoting <A HREF="http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores">gguichal at ieee.org</A>: [q] 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.[/q] Indeed you are clearly not a lawyer. Do _not_ modify licenses without legal advice, as adding new clauses may invalidate the license if they add contradictions or introduce unforeseen loopholes. [q] 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.[/q] If you add/modify a section of these licenses you created a new, unmature, untested license, hence set back any advantages you list here. Peter Soetens [q] 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 Seaman<<A HREF="http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores">graham at o...</A>> To: Date: Thu Aug 2 15:52:07 CEST 2007 Subject: [oc] GPLv3 usable for open HW [q] nussgipfel at brain4free.org wrote: [q]> hi everybody > > i know that the cores mailinglist is not the best place for[/q] this [q]> discussion but on opencores there is no better list and any[/q] other [q]> place/project on the net is more or less sleeping (the license > disussion on opencollectors.org is death since 3 years...)[/q] 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 [q]> > i'm working on a new fpga integrator board (small board for[/q] development [q]> and to be integrated into the final product). in these context[/q] i gone [q]> through all the licenses published on opensource.org last week[/q] to find [q]> one that is usable for open/free hardware, like schematics,[/q] pcb files [q]> and production data. > > it was a bit frustrating, because all these software guys only[/q] thing [q]> about software and none of theme thinks beyond one's own nose[/q] :-) [q]> > the traditional way is to use the creative commons license for[/q] these [q]> things i want to license. during my search i realised that the[/q] new [q]> GPLv3 is now usable "for software and any other[/q] work". [q]> > my idea is now to use the (L)GPLv3 for my whole board, from[/q] schematic to [q]> 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[/q] applicable [q]> as i think? > > it would be nice to have a short discussion about these with[/q] people who [q]> read some parts of the new (L)GPLv3. > > greetings > christoph zimmermann > > > > _______________________________________________ > <A HREF="http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores">http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores</A>[/q] [/q] _______________________________________________ <A HREF="http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores">http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores</A> [/q] -- www.fmtc.be Flanders' MECHATRONICS Technology Centre vzw Maatschappelijke zetel: Diamant Building, A. Reyerslaan 80, B-1030 Brussel, Belgie BTW BE 0860.286.268 ***DISCLAIMER* This e-mail and/or its attachments may contain confidential information. It is intended solely for the intended addressee(s). Any use of the information contained herein by other persons is prohibited. FMTC does not accept any liability for the contents of this e-mail and/or its attachments. **************** Quoting gguichal at ieee.org: 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. Indeed you are clearly not a lawyer. Do _not_ modify licenses without legal advice, as adding new clauses may invalidate the license if they add contradictions or introduce unforeseen loopholes. 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. If you add/modify a section of these licenses you created a new, unmature, untested license, hence set back any advantages you list here. Peter Soetens 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 nussgipfel at brain4free.org wrote: > 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 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 > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores _______________________________________________ http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores -- www.fmtc.be Flanders' MECHATRONICS Technology Centre vzw Maatschappelijke zetel: Diamant Building, A. Reyerslaan 80, B-1030 Brussel, Belgie BTW BE 0860.286.268 *DISCLAIMER* This e-mail and/or its attachments may contain confidential information. It is intended solely for the intended addressee(s). Any use of the information contained herein by other persons is prohibited. FMTC does not accept any liability for the contents of this e-mail and/or its attachments. ******************

First

Prev

2/2

no use

no use

© copyright 1999-2026 OpenCores.org, equivalent to Oliscience, all rights reserved. OpenCores®, registered trademark.