Re: hello

[Yann Guidon <whygee@f-cpu.org>]

hi !

graham@belegost.mit.edu wrote:
> Hi again
> > use the HTML power, for example, to make hyperlinks with
> > the mailing list from the main text ;-)
> good idea, I'll do that
technology is so cool when it works, right ? ;-)

> I don't think lawyers would be any happier with 'ip'. I've done it,
> its version 0.012. What do you think?
version 0.012 of what ? where ?

> <snipped long section about why stronger version of gpl needed>
> OK, I understand what you're saying and don't have anything to add...
grrrr... it was so funny :-P

> > > There's no such organization
> > > for hardware designs. Maybe there will be one day.
> > are you volunteering ? ;-P
> Needs someone with a strong personality, and a lifetime to
> dedicate - and I'm no rms... maybe a certain M.Guidon? ;-)
hey, you know that i have a CPU to make, don't count on me ;-)

> > one reason to going away from the classical GPL is because it can't be applied
> > verbatim to certain countries (ie France where the author's rights are
> > another legal tool that sometimes replaces the copyright stuffs).
> I've seen arguments that the gpl is invalid in most of central/eastern
> europe too, because of authors rights - that the attempt by the law
> to stop authors being exploited by unscrupulous publishers means that
> authors simply aren't allowed to give their work away without compensation.
> Is that the problem in France? Is your stronger gpl a solution to that?
i'm not a specialist. it's not a "solution" anyway because it's not the problem
that bugs us. maybe we can arrange things in the way, but that's not my worry :
there has not been any legal problem with the GPL in France afaik. we have
the classical opposition of conservatists (old closed model) and
"new wave enthusiasts" startupagogo.

> One thing you see in many commercial licenses is something like 'acceptance
> of this license includes acceptance that any court cases arising from
> or related to the licence will be heard in a court in the Paris region
> of France' (well usually it says 'California', but the ideas the same)
for me this is not a legal and valid term. this is unfair and sucks.

> > and finally :
> >
> > but i don't miss such a lesson. for me a SGPL is a good solution. ask RMS if it is
> > possible.
> Maybe you can ask him?
we'll see.

> After last time, I felt I was beating my head against a brick wall.
maybe because he's that solid, and doesn't have time to spend on this subject.

> But if you are seriously going to ask him I would wait till
> you have something more filled in and concrete to discuss (ie. some of
> the rest of the license, and maybe also at least an informal lawyers
> opinion).
we're still thinking... i'd like to see some "yummy flesh", not drafts only.
using the GPL as a basis is a good thing, we need to "patch" some things that's all.

> > > > maybe we can ask the FSF to issue a SGPL (like the LGPL, but with "stronger"
> > > > instead of "light").
> The impression I had from before is that anything related to hardware
> design is a low priority to the FSF
it is. but if we're not in the same wagon, we're in the same train, in the same tracks.
tchooo tchooo !

> - they may back you if you have something already created, but are
> unlikely to put any work into creating something FOR you.
sure, i know.

> > anyway, what do you think about the labels : "this product contains genetically modified
> > soja" or "this beef has got five seringues of growth hormones" etc...
> > when there's something important that the user should be aware of, it is written on the
> > package.
> At the moment the US government is taking the European Union to court
> to force them to change the law to ban these labels. The point being
> that such things are not imposed by something as feeble as copyright,
> but by explicit laws. Of course I want these labels on my food. I also
> want labels on chips pointing to documentation. I want documentation
> that tells me about the internal structure, about how to repair it
> (well, for PCBs if not CPUs!), about how to interface to it - like there
> used to be not so long ago. For me, this is one of the main points
> of the license and its finding a way to enforce it that really makes
> manufacturers do this that is important. Without this I would just
> say 'use the gpl' and not bother about the rest...

you know that most "proprietary licences" are unfair, and some paragraphs
are even illegal. then i wonder what keeps us from asking something fair ?

> > there's something to dig here.
> ? =shovel? ='dig it, man!'?
'scuse. "something to do", something to search, we only scratched the surface :-)

> > > > and these are my first words, so this is not a definitive point of view.
> > > Makes a lot of sense to me, though :-)
> > wow :-)
> je suis tellement combatif, alors? :-)
"pourvu que ça dure" :-D
(let's hope it'll last !)


> I've put up a draft of yet another attempt at a gpl-based
> license. It's not what Yann wants for the F_CPU, being
> much closer to the original gpl, but maybe there's something
> in there that could be used. It sounds horribly legalistic
> (and that's without even going near a lawyer yet), but then
> so does the gpl itself (that's my excuse). There's also no
> proper introduction yet.
> see: http://opencollector.org/hardlicense/licenses.html
> Any comments welcome.

i'll give it a look...
the big problem is finally to find the correct dose and balance between
utopia and legal statements :-)

> Graham
WHYGEE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the F-CPU: http://www.mime.univ-paris8.fr/~whygee/f-cpu.html
SHARCPAGE: http://www.mime.univ-paris8.fr/~whygee/sharcpage.html