Re: fsf/chips

[graham@belegost.mit.edu]

Hi Jamil,
> 
> 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.
Is this because of the things you say below or a separate
point? Surely it can't cover all projects - some people
think a BSD style license is better, and many people
think commercial users should not be allowed to use
'hobbyist' designs - there can never be one license which
works for such different points of view.
> 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?
Nothing in the license stops someone doing that providing
they also document any changes they made (its in clause
6, but maybe its a bit too hidden there).

> 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.
>
No, that's done in clause 4 which is almost exactly the
same as the gpl - I don't think there's much difference
between software and hardware designs in that respect.
 
> 4. The idea of protecting the bitstreem files and
> programming files is not so clear for me
The general idea is that that just like you are
allowed to distribute binary programs without the source
provided you make the source easily available, you should
be able to distribute bitstreams etc in the same way.
For example, suppose someone designs a free ('livre') encryption system
for an FPGA. A manufacturer decides to make a board which 
includes this encryption system held in an EPROM to be
loaded into an FPGA on power up. Then they are distributing
the bitstream without the source. This license says they
can do that, but they must provide a URL etc to say where
the source can be found for anyone who wants it. The two
alternatives I can see are
1) To say that the license doesn't cover the bitstream
at all, so the manufacturer can hide where it came from; or
2) To say that no distribution without the source is allowed,
so the manufacturer has to provide a CD together with the
hardware, which would be possible but seems an unnecessary
waste of the planets resources to me...
> 
> 5. yet there is no restriction on the implementation
> of the design
What kind of restrictions would you like? The only one
I wanted was that people who implement it have to document
their implementation, unless they just implement it with
no changes at all, where they just have to give a pointer
to the original documentation.
> 
> 6. For me I see it as another GPL copyright license
> that is targeted to the <hardware design files>
That was the idea. 
> 
> 
best wishes
Graham