Re: Hardware licensing

[Patrick Maupin <pmaupin@jump.net>]

> If the license does not permit conversion of the source
> into the intermediate design files, that would be like a software
> source license which does not permit compiling the source: it would
> not qualify as free.
> 
>     "These files are licensed, not sold.
> 
> It would not be free if people are restricted in this way.

I think I'm finally getting some traction here.  I believe
that this indirect method of protection may be workable,
but it doesn't qualify as free by the FSF's definition,
simply because of the restriction that you cannot compile
the Verilog unless you agree to the license.

In respect for the FSF and Mr. Stallman, and to avoid
confusing people, I think we should define any such
license as "open".

In my opinion, with the current state of copyright law,
"open" is as good as we are going to get, and is probably
sufficient to induce a lot of authors to support the
cause.

Thanks,
Pat