Re: Hardware licensing (fwd)

[graham@belegost.mit.edu]

From rms@santafe.edu  Mon Oct  9 00:47:16 2000
Return-Path: <rms@santafe.edu>
Received: from cran.mit.edu (IDENT:root@CRAN.MIT.EDU [18.244.0.188])
	by belegost.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA14657
	for <graham@belegost.mit.edu>; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 00:47:15 -0400
Received: from pele.santafe.edu (pele.santafe.edu [192.12.12.119])
	by cran.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA23039
	for <graham@opencollector.org>; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 00:47:13 -0400
Received: from wijiji.santafe.edu (wijiji [192.12.12.5])
	by pele.santafe.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA06503;
	Sun, 8 Oct 2000 22:47:11 -0600 (MDT)
Received: (from rms@localhost)
	by wijiji.santafe.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id WAA05076;
	Sun, 8 Oct 2000 22:47:11 -0600 (MDT)
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 22:47:11 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <200010090447.WAA05076@wijiji.santafe.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: wijiji.santafe.edu: rms set sender to rms@wijiji.santafe.edu using -f
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: pmaupin@jump.net
CC: graham@opencollector.org
In-reply-to: <39E00113.DD0F793B@jump.net> (message from Patrick Maupin on Sun,
	08 Oct 2000 00:07:31 -0500)
Subject: Re: Hardware licensing
Reply-to: rms@gnu.org
References:  <39E00113.DD0F793B@jump.net>

      IANAL, but
    if object code and executables are subject to copyright,
    it seems to me that an EDIF file, a GDS-II file, or other
    intangible representation mechanically (or partially
    mechanically) derived from the verilog might also be
    subject to copyright.

It surely is, and the GPL license would surely apply to those
output files.  But the GPL (and any free license) would permit
them to modify the "source" privately, and privately "compile"
it to produce these files.

Then they could turn these files into chips or boards, and sell them
however they wish, because those are not copyrightable and the GPL
does not apply.

      In layman's
    terms:  "You do not have permission to mechanically
    convert this verilog into an intermediate representation
    unless you agree to the terms of this license."

I think that a copyright-based license cannot go further than cover
the acts that copyright covers.  You would need to talk with a lawyer.

    project such as GCC or GNU/Linux is not in any
    danger of a closed-source reimplementation happening.

I had better point out that I don't use the terms "closed-source" or
"open-source", because I don't support the Open Source Movement.  It
is wishy-washy and, in the name of "pragmatism", rejects the idea of
principle.  If you care about freedom the way I do, I hope
you will support the Free Software Movement by saying "free software"
rather than "open source".

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
for more explanation of the difference between the two movements.