Re: Question <openhardware license>

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

hi,

"Jaffe, Ludwig" wrote:
> Hi WhyGee,
> 
> in the next weeks I want to generate a open hardware license. As you are
> envolved with the
> f-cpu project you probably have thought about licensing problems.
of course.
look at http://www.opencollector.org/hardlicense/hardlicense.html

> I intended to adapt the gpl to hardware things by declarating all eda,
> programming, etc. files as software. Then I'll put the files under the gpl.
AFAIK the FSF already recognizes that VHDL files (and similar source files)
can be protected by the GPL.

> But there are two flavors: The library license and the (normal) gpl.
> Now there is the political question: library license or normal gpl.
this is not really a problem, concerning the F-CPU everything is
under GPL. The role of the LGPL is unclear when applied to HW anyway.

> For example if we develop an IP core for an advanced frequency counter this circuit
> may be transferred into a commercial product, if we chose the libraray license.
> Otherwise if we chose the strict GPL no professional design engineer can
> take some parts of the project into his/her designs.
it is not so simple : look closely at fsf.org which contains useful FAQs.

what people can do with either licence can differ a lot depending
on their use.  There is noproblem if you integrate a GPL'd design "verbatim"
as isolated part of your product. IF someone asks the sources, you provide
the original GPL'd source and that's all. When you want to modify, that's
another story.

> I feel that the stupid imitator should be stopped from selling kits which
> are exactly derived from the project. But an engineer should be able to
> learn and use some 'circuit tricks and ideas' if he/she is willing to give
> some (not all, if an commercial development)
> improvements to the open hardware project.
> 
> What do you think?
> Can you help me with the license question?

you can expose your problem on the harlicence list (see url above)
but it is almost the same problem for everyone. Almost everyone involved
in Free/Open HW stuff has the same requirement.


AFAIK there is _no_ existing licence except the GPL (which was
written by very smart lawyers) which can bring you reasonable safety.
Others (including me) have tried to "tweak" it and never succeeded.
The GPL is such a legal piece of art that it is not possible to
modify it without having a doctorate in this subject.

However for the F-CPU, i have found 2 ideas :
 - 1) add a "distribution charter" to the usual GPL thing.
      We own the trademark on the F-CPU brand and can decide
      whether or not something can be labeled "a F-CPU".
      This charter is our declaration of intention and the
      GPL is a "failsafe" measure.
 - 2) what doesn't fit in the source can be protected by the GFDL !
      if you want to give a high-level point of view to the reader,
      make a manual and explain everything. This can be more or less a
      "plan" and the GFDL applies greatly to this case.

whether these measures are "legal" or not, the FSF still protects something.

> Greetings
> 
> Ludwig
WHYGEE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~