Proposed Changes to FCPU Licence

This is not an official list of change proposals, and it is not where proposals are originally made or accepted. It is just an attempt at a record of changes suggested on the fcpu mailing list or the hardlicense-discuss mailing list.
  1. Para referred to: V0.01 Rights & Duties 5
    Proposer: David Cary 2000-06-24
    Proposal: Few chips have copyright strings on them now; is this something we want to force people to add ? I think just the URI is adequate.
    Responder: YG 2000-06-26
    Response: yep. you're right. it was a bad habit.
    Change Made: V0.011
  2. Para referred to: V0.01 Rights & Duties 6
    Proposer: David Cary 2000-06-24
    Proposal: change "may" to "must" in : " Zoobidah may mirror the files as well."
    Responder: YG 2000-06-26
    Response: i don't know. it's recommended as a precaution, but we have no right or justification to force it. i guess that in practice, an implementation based on another will have to modify at least a few things, plus people need to leave their "mark", so i presume that people will usually modify (even slightly but it's enough) the IP, so they're forced to mirror everything as well as the changes (in the form of a new archive or a patch to an old archive (that must reside at the same location)).
    Change Made:
  3. Para referred to: V0.01 Rights & Duties 7
    Proposer: David Cary 2000-06-24
    Proposal: Huh ? I've never seen a manual come with a chip. I've seen "Data Manual"s that describe hundreds of different chips ... but generally one buys that first, then selects a chip out of it.
    Responder: YG 2000-06-26
    Response: well, you have probably seen Intel's PIIs or a motherboard box, it comes with a sheet which says the jumper configuration and the voltage etc... Today the de facto standard is Intel, so the characteristics are "in the public domain", it's well known what voltage etc... In the F-CPU world, there will be different versions, each specific and adapted to a certain case, so you have to provide at least a sheet indicating the socket type etc... with every single chip that is sold to the end consumer (like when you buy a CPU from RadioSpares or RadioShack, you see ?). If it's meant to be sold to other companies that embed the CPU chip on a motherboard (like, when you sell the chips to DELL for being resold on the market) then the URI on the chip is necessary because the CPU is not sold with the datasheet.
    Change Made:
  4. Para referred to: V0.01 Rights & Duties 9-11
    Proposer: David Cary 2000-06-24
    Proposal: The previous 3 paragraphs looks far too restrictive. For example, say someone ports Wine to the f-cpu. Am I not legally allowed to use any of the many shareware programs that run on top of Wine ? On the other hand, I love the crazy optimism it conveys.
    Responder: YG 2000-06-26
    Response: it's not even optimism, it's utopism (as everything in this project). In fact i don't expect these rules to be closely followed by everybody. the is meant to make everybody understand the goals of this project : freedom. everybody is born free, we have the right to die free. We created the F-CPU free, we don't want it to become propietary. These 3 paragraphs were meant to define the rules of the utopic world. btw, you won't even be able to run Wine because you'd have to emulate the x86 :-) it's not forbiden to emulate another CPU with a F-CPU, but it was not intended to do it (there's no emulation facility). OTOH, every F-CPU simulator written must AT LEAST be bound by the GPL (as long as the f-cpu licence is not ready).

    to fully answer your question, there is no "risk" running a x86 emulator as long as the emulator conforms the f-cpu (utopic) rules. the x86 emulator offers an abstraction level so the freeware (or any other software) written for the PC does not directly access the real HW. The emulator does access the HW and must conform the rules described above. of course, there is some "crazy optimism", but we have nothing to lose in fact, because nothing exists yet ;-P this is one part of the freedom it conveys : it give us the right to hope, imagine and dream. that is probably the hidden message of the project.
    Change Made:

  5. Para referred to: V0.01 thoughout
    Proposer: Graham Seaman 2000-08-12
    Proposal: replace 'IP' with 'design' throughout [see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html for why]
    Responder: YG 2000-08-13
    Response: this sounds cool. lawyers will hate.
    Change made: V0.012
  6. Para referred to: Additional para
    Proposer: YG 2000-08-18
    Proposal: - file format openness : no proprietary format. should be recommended by the W3C or standardized by the IEEE or ISO/ANSI.
    Responders: Jamil, Graham, YG. Discussion ongoing
  7. Para referred to: Additional para
    Proposer: Jamil Khatib 2000-08-17
    Proposal: Explicit differentiation between derived/based work needed
    Responders: Jamil, Graham, YG. Discussion ongoing

G.Seaman,