Re: hello

[graham@belegost.mit.edu]

Hi,

I've added some pages for the fcpu license: see
http://opencollector.org/hardlicense/fcpu.html
If its ok with people, I'll build on these (to keep
a record rather than as a place where people leave
things; I can't think of a simple way to allow general
modification of pages; I could add a script to take
proposals for changes, but I think its better done through
the mailing lists).

The rest of this reply is broken into sections to make it
easier for me. :-)
> 
> hi,
> 
> graham@belegost.mit.edu wrote:
> > I don't know what to replace it with. 'IP' is one of those nasty terms
> > that is convenient because it avoids having to think about the quite
> > different things it covers - but it smuggles in a belief that ideas
> > can be 'property' - that once you've had an idea no-one else is
> > allowed to have it, which I think is quite contradictory with your
> > generally utopian approach (and the FSF's approach too). In any
> > case, you cannot claim ownership of 'IP' in the sense it is used in EDA
> > using only copyright law - if there is an original IDEA in your
> > design, you could only protect that idea using patent law. The
> > gpl and any other license you create are based on copyright, which
> > only covers form.
> 
> so what do you propose ? (for the text) 
> 
> for the patent issue, the stategy in the f-cpu project is offensive and defensive :
> - make as much prior art proofs as possible, through specialized magazines for example.
> - have a very flexible design so one piece can be interchanged if there's a problem.
> 
> but when it comes to the denominations, i'm forced to use the "usual" vocabulary.
OK, how about just using the word 'design'? Given the same definition
as in para 2 of 'What is in common with the gpl', you could use the
word design instead of IP almost everywhere in the text without
changing the end result.

Graham