Re: fsf/chips

[Jamil Khatib <jamilkhatib75@yahoo.com>]

Hi,

I read teh hardware Design Public license version 0.04
by Graham.
Here are my comments

1. It does not cover all the needs of all open
hardware projects.
2. In Clause 1: "The HDPL covers all files included in
the hardware design" but what about teh design itself?
Assume that I downloaded the F-CPU manual and coded
everthing in VHDL, compile it and then put it on
Silicon who is going to stop me if I sell the chip as
my own chip?
3. In Clause 3 you did not differentiate between the
the derived work and based work.

Derived work: when you take the design and modify it
or add to it, something like adding an extra
instruction to the F-CPU

work based on teh design: when you take the design as
is. like using the F-CPU in a new parallel CPUs core
that uses multiple F-CPUs and connect them on a single
bus without any changes on the F-CPU.

4. The idea of protecting the bitstreem files and
programming files is not so clear for me

5. yet there is no restriction on the implementation
of the design

6. For me I see it as another GPL copyright license
that is targeted to the <hardware design files>


Regards
Jamil Khatib

--- Yann Guidon <whygee@f-cpu.org> wrote:
> hello,
> 
> late answer </sorry>
> 
> Jamil Khatib wrote:
> > > i've read the goals from basiclic.shtml :
> > >
> > > "Any update to the design should be documented
> and returned to the design. "
> > >  it's not very "GPL", it's not something that
> can be
> > > legally enforced, like the problem of the URL on
> the chips.
> > 
> > Yes I agree with you but we need all
> modifications.
> mmm maybe it should be rephrased then.
> 
> > > "Any work based on the design can be either made
> > > free under OpenIP licnese or protected by any
> other
> > > licnese."
> > >  this is something that can be easily
> > > "reinterpreted" ... bad bad bad. it contradicts
> > > the line that says : "Any derivative work based
> on
> > > the IP should be free under OpenIP Licnese."
> > 
> > There is a difference between work based and
> derivative
> > work. Work based on such as a communication
> controller
> > that uses F-CPU core. while Derivative work is a
> new
> > F-CPU with extra instruction
> 
> <personal>
> i don't think much about such a difference.
> when you "use" the design, you read it and you
> implement whatever is on, that's all.
> when you "reuse", "modify" or "base a work" on this
> design, you read this design
> to make something else with it. that's simple.
> maybe it's just a problem of vocabulary ?
> 
> > > licgoals.shtml says :
> > > "The license should restrict the commercial
> income
> > > of the hardware products"
> > > i don't think that it is useful. it' restricts
> the
> > > "free" market.
> > 
> > There are different ideas about this point, some
> want
> > this restriction but teh others do not. Anyhow
> this
> > restriction should be on the R&D cost notteh
> > implementation cost, the same as for distributing
> > GPLed SW on cdroms.
> 
> it should probably be written on the site, to
> explicit the
> intent. as for the f-cpu, since it is derived in
> parts
> from the GPL, such a notice is not necessary.
> 
> > > > I'll start by my self in the week end to
> summarize all
> > > > what I think we need of a license
> > >
> > > i retrospect, after what we discussed with
> Graham, i think that a
> > > slightly more "picky" GPL can do the trick. not
> only for HW IP projects
> > > but also for other "classical" projects.
> > I am going to take a look at your suggested
> license
> > and give my comments.
> 
> it's gonna be interesting :-)
> 
> > > > Regards
> > > > Jamil Khatib
> have fun,
> WHYGEE
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> the F-CPU:
> http://www.mime.univ-paris8.fr/~whygee/f-cpu.html
> SHARCPAGE:
http://www.mime.univ-paris8.fr/~whygee/sharcpage.html


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/