OpenCores

OpenCores

Core Licenses Questions

First

Prev

3/3

no use

no use

Core Licenses Questions by jcastillo on Jan 6, 2005			jcastillo Posts: 32 Joined: Jun 29, 2004 Last seen: Dec 21, 2021
[q]However, this is missing the point. The problem is not freedoms, it's obligations: what obligations do you take on by accepting the licence?[/q] [q]Instead of starting with freedoms, I'd suggest taking as a base point having no licence, and releasing code which is not copyrighted. This act itself specifies the allowed freedoms far more eloquently than any statement of principles. You could then, if you really wanted to (and I can personally see no real reason to do this), progressively add two classes of obligations:[/q] [q]a) Your obligations if you 'use' the unmodified code[/q] [q]b) Your obligations if you 'use' 'modified' code.[/q] [q]However, if you want to start adding obligations, you need to start by stating exactly why you wish to place obligations on the user. Can anyone tell me why it is that they want to do this?[/q] [q]Richard[/q] In this context freedoms and obligations has the same meaning. When you define the freedoms of the user you are implicitly defining the obligations. When these freedoms or obligations will be defined we can select what kind of license fits better with them. Some obligations and desirable things discussed are: - Protect the author from any claims - Get the author's name out - People can use the core for commercial purposes - License should be compatible with other licenses - No need to contribute back the modifications - The documentation of the chip should clearly provide credits and the disclaimer. - If anybody uses a chip containing open source IP on a board, the board's documentation does not need to provide credits and the disclaimer. - People who develop a enhanced version must publish the details of the INTERFACE What do you think? Javier Castillo _______________________________________________ <A HREF="http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores">http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores</A> However, this is missing the point. The problem is not freedoms, it's obligations: what obligations do you take on by accepting the licence? Instead of starting with freedoms, I'd suggest taking as a base point having no licence, and releasing code which is not copyrighted. This act itself specifies the allowed freedoms far more eloquently than any statement of principles. You could then, if you really wanted to (and I can personally see no real reason to do this), progressively add two classes of obligations: a) Your obligations if you 'use' the unmodified code b) Your obligations if you 'use' 'modified' code. However, if you want to start adding obligations, you need to start by stating exactly why you wish to place obligations on the user. Can anyone tell me why it is that they want to do this? Richard In this context freedoms and obligations has the same meaning. When you define the freedoms of the user you are implicitly defining the obligations. When these freedoms or obligations will be defined we can select what kind of license fits better with them. Some obligations and desirable things discussed are: - Protect the author from any claims - Get the author's name out - People can use the core for commercial purposes - License should be compatible with other licenses - No need to contribute back the modifications - The documentation of the chip should clearly provide credits and the disclaimer. - If anybody uses a chip containing open source IP on a board, the board's documentation does not need to provide credits and the disclaimer. - People who develop a enhanced version must publish the details of the INTERFACE What do you think? Javier Castillo _______________________________________________ http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores

Core Licenses Questions by Unknown on Jan 7, 2005			Not available!
[q] - Protect the author from any claims - Get the author's name out - People can use the core for commercial purposes - License should be compatible with other licenses - No need to contribute back the modifications - The documentation of the chip should clearly provide credits and the disclaimer. - If anybody uses a chip containing open source IP on a board, the board's documentation does not need to provide credits and the disclaimer. - People who develop a enhanced version must publish the details of the INTERFACE What do you think? [/q] I like this. It provides all we've requested so far. Plus it requires companies to keep the device driver interface open. If you don't like the 'no need to contribute back' section, leave it out. Cheers, Richard - Protect the author from any claims - Get the author's name out - People can use the core for commercial purposes - License should be compatible with other licenses - No need to contribute back the modifications - The documentation of the chip should clearly provide credits and the disclaimer. - If anybody uses a chip containing open source IP on a board, the board's documentation does not need to provide credits and the disclaimer. - People who develop a enhanced version must publish the details of the INTERFACE What do you think? I like this. It provides all we've requested so far. Plus it requires companies to keep the device driver interface open. If you don't like the 'no need to contribute back' section, leave it out. Cheers, Richard

Core Licenses Questions by Unknown on Jan 9, 2005			Not available!
Aloha! Quoting Rudolf Usselmann <<A HREF="http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores">rudi at asics.ws</A>>: [q] Perhaps we should start a lit of items we feel are important to have in a HGPL. Than we could hire an attorney to convert it in to legalese ... For example my list would start of with: 1) Unrestricted use a) No requirement to contribute back b) No requirement to publish enhancements 2) Give Credit where credit is due e.g. Duplicate This License in the user manual/cd/whatever Perhaps we can take that as a start and add items till everybody (who is interested in a modified BSD style license) is happy ? I think we will see a big division on my #1 item. So we might have to create 2 flavors of the license. One that is totally permissive (BSD style) and perhaps a second one that is closer to L/GPL.[/q] I think this is a very good idea. I need to think of items that needs to be included, but I think you nailed the really important ones. -- Med vÃ¤nlig hÃ¤lsning, Yours Joachim StrÃ¶mbergson - Alltid i harmonisk svÃ¤ngning. VP, Research & Development ---------------------------------------------------------------------- InformAsic AB / Hugo Grauers gata 5B / SE-411 33 GÃ–TEBORG / Sweden Tel: +46 31 68 54 90 Fax: +46 31 68 54 91 Mobile: +46 733 75 97 02 E-mail: <A HREF="http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores">joachim.strombergson at informasic.com</A> Home: www.informasic.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Aloha! Quoting Rudolf Usselmann rudi at asics.ws>: Perhaps we should start a lit of items we feel are important to have in a HGPL. Than we could hire an attorney to convert it in to legalese ... For example my list would start of with: 1) Unrestricted use a) No requirement to contribute back b) No requirement to publish enhancements 2) Give Credit where credit is due e.g. Duplicate This License in the user manual/cd/whatever Perhaps we can take that as a start and add items till everybody (who is interested in a modified BSD style license) is happy ? I think we will see a big division on my #1 item. So we might have to create 2 flavors of the license. One that is totally permissive (BSD style) and perhaps a second one that is closer to L/GPL. I think this is a very good idea. I need to think of items that needs to be included, but I think you nailed the really important ones. -- Med vÃ¤nlig hÃ¤lsning, Yours Joachim StrÃ¶mbergson - Alltid i harmonisk svÃ¤ngning. VP, Research & Development ---------------------------------------------------------------------- InformAsic AB / Hugo Grauers gata 5B / SE-411 33 GÃ–TEBORG / Sweden Tel: +46 31 68 54 90 Fax: +46 31 68 54 91 Mobile: +46 733 75 97 02 E-mail: joachim.strombergson at informasic.com Home: www.informasic.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------

First

Prev

3/3

no use

no use

© copyright 1999-2025 OpenCores.org, equivalent to Oliscience, all rights reserved. OpenCores®, registered trademark.