Re: fsf/chips

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

graham@belegost.mit.edu wrote:
> > hi,
> > graham@belegost.mit.edu wrote:
> > i'm not a specialist, and the GFDL licence gets to the point
> > better than me.
> What about schematics? even worse problems.... :-(
sure !

> > - opaque or patented formats (yes, some people do patent file formats,
> > like M$ for a streaming format) are a BIG NO-NO. even if there's a document
> > or two describing it somewhere.
> >
> > this mail should be discussed and edited before we include it in the
> > licence file, for example we can analyze and/or copy some parts of the GFDL
> > which contains good points. The GFDL also deals with the translation to
> > other langages. in general, any attempt to encrypt, remove rights
> > (reproduce, understand, modify), reduce the visibility/understanding etc
> > are forbidden.
> Then how about a simple statement: 'any text documents in this design
> are covered by the conditions of the current version of the GFDL'?
it's not only about text... it's the whole design...

> Has the advantage that they do the work of keeping track of the
> current text format problems for you :-) Then we just have to worry about
> hardware-specific things like schematics, IC layout files, etc...
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > to avoid any problems, the terms of "inhouse use" and the likes should
> > be avoided. even if in practice a file format gets translated into another,
> > for example in the memory of your computer when you display it, i don't want
> > to have problems with this concept/can of worms. maybe later we could work on this
> > matter, but the industrial world is full of constraints and the GPL has not yet
> > won all over the world, in particular in the laboratories that are tied to
> > proprietary SW (Cadence or synopsys etc...).

i think that i have maybe an idea :
"fair use" of "obscure" formats for "limited inhouse use" under the condition
that it gets transformed to a recommended format upon request : this allows
you to use the latest schematic editor for your internal development,
and you transform the schematic file to a classic format when you commit CVS
or when someone asks to see your version. The "limited" in "limited inhouse use"
means that it is limited both in use time and proportion of the project's files.
More clearly, the recommended formats have priority, the "fair use" is restricted
to cases where the available tools (using said formats) don't perform the necessary
tasks.

i was thinking about something more restrictive :
the new/temporary form does not get manually edited. this allows the use
of compilers, because their internal data structures are very cryptic.

but in the case described before, which is more realistic though potentially
weaker, is more adapted to today's situation. For example, i tried VGUI,
which uses a "unique" file format, but it generates/exports/imports
other file formats, and particularly VHDL. Then the "inhouse" use of the
internal file format has no incidence on the design, and they conserve
the F-CPU's copyright.

Anyway, the right of "limited and fair inhouse use of non-recommended formats"
stops when someone asks to retrieve your files and the rest of the philosophy
still applies.


> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > i'm trying to jump on Jamil's idea of derivative/based work problems.
> > but it's a difficult problem.
> Its a problem shared with software: clause 2 of the gpl, para following
> the <ul>...</ul> on their web page version. But its in horrible
> legalese language so easy to miss...
i have not seen this very well. i'll try later.

> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > you can speak on the HTML about the point we made recently about
> > the cohabitation of several 'designs' : there's no problem integrating
> > the F-CPU design on a chip that implements another design distributed
> > with another licence if :
> > - the presence of the f-cpu is clearly stated
> > (as other f-cpu only chips, you know, the url etc), and
> > - the licence is respected and
> > - the core is not obscurely modified to integrate the new features.
> You want me to put that in as a separate clause? Could you just
> save the latest page 'as html source', edit it and mail it back? Otherwise
> I'm going to be guessing at what you want with risk of mind-reading
> wrongly ;-)

good idea... i'll try to do this. a bit later, too ;-)
thirty minutes of mail writing is more than i can afford,
because my master thesis is still unfinished :-/

> > > Graham
> > WHYGEE
> Graham
WHYGEE again ;-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Moi qui pensait que dans le libre y avait pas trop de cyber-neuneus."
 F. Couchet, APRIL.org, 8/18/2000 (contre les portails à la con)