Why complicate?

Those that want to use LGPL or derivates, use them.

Those that want to use BSD or derivates, use them.

As always, there are always advantages and disadvantages of using one over
another. There simply isn't "the best license" scheme.

regards,
Damjan

It looks like there is much controversy on the license subject and anybody who has read the GPL or LGPL in our community doesn't see a clear way on how to make it fit with HW cores, so I see at least a need to clarify this. I personally agree with the line of Mr. Usselmann.

There is much discussion about compatibility between licenses but I think many of us are still thinking in SW terms. Let's think of a company who releases an ASIC with three components, one of them is GPL'ed, other one is modified BSD and the other one is propietary. What incompatibility is there here? First, the GPL license doesn't fit for HW purposes because nobody agrees on what should this company have to do to use the GPL, their own component is theirs, even if it is the top entity and inside it there is the GPL or BSD component. Are they bound by GPL to publish their core code?

What do we want with open cores?

1) We publish the source code to allow anybody use our cores in any design providing the HW implementations carry in the manual/cd the license (copyrigth notice, disclaimer,...). With this we would be faithful to the mission statement, to provide open cores, and also author's names would be there (important for starting up IP companies as it is "free" publicity)

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).

There are two subjects posed in the mailing list that still haven't been answered:

What Richard (RT) wrote:



What Mr. Herveille wrote:
Regards, Víctor López Lorenzo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.opencores.org/forums.cgi/cores/attachments/20050106/a26933e5/attachment.htm

Víctor López schrieb:



You reject the GPL saying that no company will accept it, but propose
a new license that does not allow commercial use?

Philipp

Dear, Defining an new Open Core or Open hardware license would be the best solution since others GPL/LGPL etc .. are focused on 'software'. Define two versions: a GPL like: so everybody can use and improve etc... And the most important reason ... keep 'open hardware development' going on. and a LGPL like: the original author can make the 'core' for some purpose available under an other more restrictive license in which the user is not obligated to contribute his own written parts. Gaisler Research sells special licenses for Leon to people who would like to use Leon as a part of a complete system. Greatings, Patrick Pelgrims -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.opencores.org/forums.cgi/cores/attachments/20050106/4494c46e/attachment.htm

And I have to agree.


Excuse me?
Do you want to rule out any commercial usage of open cores IP cores?
Why?
Hell, I want my cores to be used all over the place.
I want the OpenRISC to be a rival to embedded MIPS, ARM, ARC, and whatever
else is out there.
What do you mean "rule out any commercial usage"????

Richard

So, is this the general consensus? Do we think we need a specialized Open Hardware License? Note that we came to this conclusion already several times !!! If so, then lets take Rudi's last proposed license as a starting point and lets hear some suggestions/comments to make this the base of our license. Richard _____ From: cores-bounces at opencores.org [mailto:cores-bounces at opencores.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Pelgrims Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 5:44 PM To: 'Discussion list about free open source IP cores' Subject: [oc] License Dear, Defining an new Open Core or Open hardware license would be the best solution since others GPL/LGPL etc .. are focused on 'software'. Define two versions: a GPL like: so everybody can use and improve etc... And the most important reason ... keep 'open hardware development' going on. and a LGPL like: the original author can make the 'core' for some purpose available under an other more restrictive license in which the user is not obligated to contribute his own written parts. Gaisler Research sells special licenses for Leon to people who would like to use Leon as a part of a complete system. Greatings, Patrick Pelgrims -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.opencores.org/forums.cgi/cores/attachments/20050106/9f0e3e50/attachment.htm

Philipp, I am just saying what I would like and that is two licenses:
A general one for cores anybody could use (commercially) and another one
for non-profit research and educational purposes. The second one is not
a good idea? maybe, I just said what I would like, I did not say I did not
want cores to be used in commercial projects, indeed it would be the first
the one everybody would use, but the second (educational and research =
non-profit) would maybe open a new scope of cores from enterprises (not
me) who could then contribute code knowing that it wouldn't harm their business.



his >own written parts.


Patrick, I dont understand what you mean with those two HW GPL like licenses.
Do you mean that with the GPL license, the HW vendor that uses the core
is required to publish his propietary parts of the chip?? Indeed, in your
description, both the GPL and LGPL allow open hardware development go on.
I think we can't just expect that companies using our cores will contribute
in any way to them! the code they make is propietary, it would only be ok
to demand that changes to the core they got from us should be made available
thru the same license the core was published. Is that what you mean with
GPL?
I personally don't think that enterprises will want to contribute to our
effort, we can expect in justice only that our copyright note and disclaimer
be in their products, stating that a part of their product has been made
from an open core from author Xxxxx.

I agree with Richard Herveille and Rudolf Usselmann in that modified BSD
is a good starting point as a LGPL kind of HW license that would fit us.
Regards,

Víctor López

Le jeudi 6 Janvier 2005 16:51, Víctor López a écrit :


This is a very bad example. Because, if the A component is relesead under GPL,
B component under modified BSD, C closed.

Where is the problem ?

So A and C could not be put together ? But you own the copyright of both
code ! So you do what you want with you're code ! Like Trollteck that sell
non GPL licence for Qt.



cf. all the problem around such "advertising close". Does every body that put
some code there could ask to add there name ? (i speak about puting rule in
licence, GPL does not force this but there is often contributors file, there
is also the copyright owners name)



GPL is very very strong. That's why LGPL is prefered but LGPL did not give
well the border.

GPL cover only derivative form of work. So if you use an open core under GPL +
old closed stuff. This can't be a derivative work so it must not be under
GPL.

If you create some new closed core beside the GPL, it's quite unclear. If you
create a MMU conform to OPENRISC spec (and if Openrisc was under GPL), your
code have no sense without the openrisc cores. So this bloc must be GPL. If
you build an fft calculus bloc, it could be used elsewhere it's quite
unrelated to a open cpu core.

But ok, it's not so evident.




This obligation from GPL is to make it easy. It also avoid that a compagny
improved you're code and say that could access the code on a listing but you
could only access it in a small chinese village.



legal stuff are always complexe. If you are not afraid about losing your
liberty to keep your code open, choose the public domain.



An asic using a GPL code seems complexe. At least, with the usual
understanding of the GPL.

But releasing GPL code could able to sell licence of non gpl version and
create a compagny with that. (like trolltech,...)



Sure it's quite easy to create free software : public domain does it.

The real question is : what kind of "freedom protection" do you want ?
None -> bsd like licence,
A strong one -> a GPL like one



The second one is not free software at all. If you want make compagnies paid,
use GPL licence.

Damjan: You are missing the point...... People that actually use the cores posted (or consider using the cores posted) care very much about the licensing issues ---- while a lot of people who write cores just follow the recommendations on the web site ( which most of us think are silly). Its time for a change. bj Porcella http://pages.sbcglobal.net/bporcella/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Damjan Lampret" damjanl at opencores.org> To: "Discussion list about free open source IP cores" cores at opencores.org> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 8:13 AM Subject: [oc] License

This is the way you see it. But that doesn't mattter.
All that matters is what will hold up in court.
Any I can argue that a chip, based on some piece of open source IP, is
derived from that piece of IP. And thus it is a derivative work.

This is exactly the point all these discussions are about.
It is not clear. You interpret it this way, I can argue/interpret it that
way.
We need a CLEAR license.



source IP on a

credits and


Please, no flame like in the X11 project ! :)

I know i have read enough from RMS, from lawyer her in France, and so on.



A derivative work is not a concept of the GPL. This is a concept inside
the copyright law.

If there is a "mechanical" transformation between A and B, from the point
of view of the law, it's quite the same thing. That's why GPL speak about
prefered form of work, because source code is more usable.



sur.



Eh? Que?
What's wrong with what I just stated??

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: cores-bounces at opencores.org [mailto:cores-bounces at opencores.org] Namens Víctor López Verzonden: donderdag 6 januari 2005 21:42 Aan: cores at opencores.org Onderwerp: [oc] License

Philipp, I am just saying what I would like and that is two licenses: A
general one for cores anybody could use (commercially) and another one
for non-profit research and educational purposes. The second one is not
a good idea? maybe, I just said what I would like, I did not say I did
not want cores to be used in commercial projects, indeed it would be the
first the one everybody would use, but the second (educational and
research =
non-profit) would maybe open a new scope of cores from enterprises (not
me) who could then contribute code knowing that it wouldn't harm their
business.


his >own written parts. Patrick, I dont understand what you mean with those two HW GPL like licenses. Do you mean that with the GPL license, the HW vendor that uses the core is required to publish his propietary parts of the chip?? No, because this will slow down the open core development. Only modifications on the used core could be donated back, if e.g. the modification or improvement is accepted by the 'original' author. Indeed, in your description, both the GPL and LGPL allow open hardware development go on. I think we can't just expect that companies using our cores will contribute in any way to them! the code they make is propietary, it would only be ok to demand that changes to the core they got from us should be made available thru the same license the core was published. Is that what you mean with GPL? Yes. I personally don't think that enterprises will want to contribute to our effort, we can expect in justice only that our copyright note and disclaimer be in their products, stating that a part of their product has been made from an open core from author Xxxxx. Fine, but some lawyuers from big companies don't like GPL. There is not yet an clear jurisprudiction and lawyers (read:companies) like more clear licensing especially for hardware. GPL, LGPL, BSD are introduced in the software world. I agree with Richard Herveille and Rudolf Usselmann in that modified BSD is a good starting point as a LGPL kind of HW license that would fit us. I have the same opinion, but give it an other name e.g. 'OCL'. Regards, Patrick Víctor López _______________________________________________ http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores

Giacomo Bernardi wrote:


its worth remembering the GPL is based in copyright law, which does not
actually apply to a hardware product. I see little point in choosing a
license that is unlikely to stand up to serious challenge (for a
physical product that is).
Thats only going to dissuade those likely to assist, (and the converse)



surely the author gets to choose. Hardware is different to software,
I see these as very software oriented arguments...
While the GPL suits some things fine, its not appropriate for many things.



I never actually found an explicit license for the original spices.

john

I can't understand very well why the hardware would require a different
license from software.
The GPL license, and the LGPL too, defends not only the rights of the
author, but especially the rights of the author as a part of a community.
The obligations to exhibits the name of the author defends the author,
but the obligation to contribute back all the changes and the enhancements
defends the community, that has the possibility to use a product(cores) which
quality is maintained always high by the customers of the product.
If we discard the importance of contribuiting back the changes i think that
in the future the cores of opencores could be only a bad copy of the same
core commercially used.
An example is the spice program of Berkeley. It was first developed at
Berkeley and realesed with BSD license.
Now only students ( and not always ) can use Spice3f5 of Berkeley, but
every one who would to start a commercial project must buy a spice simulator
from a software house that has build his spice simulator beginning from the
spice of Berkeley.
Which is the gain of the community in this case?
I think that this point is crucial, because it must be decided if the open
hardware ( as the open software alrerady do ) must realize a bigger opening
of the markets to the people or constituting an advantage for the company that
are already in the market.
Anyway i understand that the GPL is not advantagious for any situation because
who decide to use a core from opencores can' t give all proprietary work.
But what' s wrong in LGPL?

Giacomo Bernardi wrote on Sun, 9 Jan 2005 12:02:50 +0000


Most people here don't seem to understand this, which is why this
discussion isn't going anywhere until we step back and agree on the
basic terms and issues. Note that I am not a lawyer and what follows is
all from memory, so I will eagerly await corrections.

[Copyright]

Originally only for books, over the years the set of laws that govern
copyrights has been extended as required by the evolving reality. An
interesting example for us was when it was decided that player piano
rolls were copyrightable even though they were meant to be read by a
machine instead of a person.

Though it is easy to forget today, software wasn't automatically assumed
to be protected by copyright. In Brazil, for an example of a Berne
convention country (an international treaty that tried to keep local
laws in sync), a special law had to be passed in late 1987 to extend
copyright to software. Before that what we call "piracy" was perfectly
legal. I don't remember when the law was extended in the US, but it was
probably in the 1960s or 70s. The US also started to allow software to
be patented around 1981 or so, but that is another story.

Another interesting extension from the early 1980s which is interesting
for us was then the US and Japan agreed to allow integrated circuit mask
artwork to be copyrighted. We will get back to this later.

[Public domain, Licenses]

It is very, very important for us to understand what exactly GPL or BSD
style licenses do for us and how they contrast with the End User License
Agreements (EULAs) that the commercial software producers normally use.

First copyright laws again: what they say is that only the copyright
holder (normally the original creator or someone who hired him) can
create copies of the material. I can't and you can't. It is a crime for
us to do so. But the law also says that the copyright holder can extend
that right to any person he chooses under any conditions he wants. The
best way to do that is to make use a a separate set of laws: the
contract laws. He can have a contract with three of his friends and now
they can also make copies of the material and it isn't a crime for them
to do so.

Now this situation doesn't last (or shouldn't, at least) forever. After
some time the material is declared to belong to the "public domain" and
anybody at all can copy it. What if you want to allow everybody to copy
your material before that time is up? You can explictly put that
material in the public domain any time you want. The problem with this
is that somebody can get a copy of the material and then decide to sue
you for some damage they feel this might have caused them. If the
material had naturally become part of the public domain you would be
long dead by this time and wouldn't have to worry about this, but by
doing it early it could be a problem.

So an alternative is to create a contract with everybody. Of course you
don't want to go into every place in the world and sign a paper with
every person, but it is possible to draft the contract so that a judge
will be satisfied that both parties agreed to it even if they have never
actually met. Let's look at the GPL license, for example (though in this
particular discussion the BSD is exactly the same). Some random person
who has a program in his computer can't share it with me - it is illegal
for him to copy it. But there is some text on his machine which is a
contract with the original author. We can assume that the author agreed
to it and if my friend also agrees to it then he can give me a copy
legally. How does he prove that he agreed with it? The very act of
distributing a copy is defined in the contract itself as proof of
acceptance.

Note that I, the receiver of the copy, don't have to agree with the GPL.
It also doesn't say anything about what I can do with the program. Only
if I want to distribute the program myself, which the copyright law
forbids, do I have to look at the GPL and decide to accept it. It
doesn't take anything away from me (a common misconception) but instead
adds stuff that I normally wouldn't have. One of the things me and my
friend have agreed to is that the original author is not responsible for
any damages we might have as a result of using the program. Note that we
can still sue the author (nothing can prevent that, which is another
common misconception) but now it is less likely we will win and it would
probably be easier and less costly for the author. So there is *some*
protection in that. Of course, *before* I agreed with the GPL to
distribute the program I already was using it and had not yet agreed to
not hold the author responsible for damages. In practice this is not
likely to make any difference.

The EULAs are also contracts. They are also known as "shrink wrap"
agreements since they usually have a term that says that the proof that
you agreed to the contract was the removal of the shrink wrap around the
box which the software came in. Unlike the previous example, it is the
person receiving the program that is bound to the contract, not the
person copying it (which is not the store in any case but the original
factory) so the copyright laws don't apply at all. This contract does
not grant you any rights that the law doesn't already give you, but in
fact takes some away. There is some debate about whether it can do that,
but we will just assume it can. So normally I have the right to measure
how fast the program is while running it and then write a magazine
article about what I found. The contract might forbid me to do that. It
might not allow me to use the program for some purpose or other or it
might require that I only use the program while upside down!

There reason why I have gone into all this in such detail is because
some people seem to want things from the license that an EULA will give
them while writing it in a Open Source License style. That won't work.

[different forms]

What is this "material" I have been talking about so far? Whatever the
original author typed in is obviously one example. But if someone
modifies it in some way then we will have a "derived work" related to
the material and subject to all kinds of rules we won't go into here. A
more interesting modification for us is when some mechanical translation
process is applied. Like if we use the Unix program "sed" to replace all
variables named "jxk4" with "khg", for example. To a judge that would
look like a slightly different form of the *same* work. Any teacher
would say the same thing as well. A little less obvious is the case when
the original was a C program and we translated it automatically to
Pascal or to x86 machine language, but I think we can all agree that it
is still the same program and so any copyright restrictions should
continue to apply.

Now imagine that the "material" is a picture I have drawn. This picture
happens to be the schematic for some circuit I invented but that doesn't
really matter in terms of copyright. Nobody in the world can make copies
of that drawing except for me. If we translate it into a different form
(a text with the netlist, for example) that restriction should still
apply. The interesting thing is what happens if I give this drawing (in
whatever form) to five people. Copyright law keeps them from giving it
to other people in turn, but imagine one person builds the circuit
described by the drawing and then sells it to someone else. Is that
circuit just another form of the drawing? THIS IS IMPORTANT! Some of us
are tempted to answer yes, but my experience tells me that many people
(including any judges we are likely to meet) will answer no. Richard
Stallman thinks the answer is no, which is the reason he has said the
stuff he said about free hardware on this very list.

So controlling how people copy the material we produce will not be
enough for some of us. Commercial use of our cores is not copying but
*using* them. I will agree that the case of bitstream files for FPGAs is
fuzzy, but for ASICs I hope we can all agree on this.

The reason why the IC mask artwork copyright extension worked was that
you can't make the chip without the mask and you can't get a copy of the
mask unless the author gives it to you. Taking a picture of the chip to
generate a mask is still illegal. But if I have some board and then I
draw a schematic from it after probing it with a multimeter, I will not
have a copy of the schematic that was used to create it. It will be a
different drawing. Even if 100% equivalent, it was not mechanically
dirived from the original.

The bottom line: the difference between hardware and software is that
for software we can control just copying and let people use it however
they want if we don't want to be as nasty as commercial software. But
for hardware redistribution is using our material and not copying it, so
if we want more control then we need to be more EULA style.

Note that even an EULA contract with restrictions might not have as much
"teeth" as an Open Source license since it is easier to get a jury to
agree with you when granting new things than when trying to forbid. So
one solution is to have one or more patents associated with your design.
Now patent law will be forbidding the person who got your material from
building stuff with it and you can write a contract that will allows
this under your terms.

I hope that helps,
-- Jecel