Re: changes made/thanks (re hardware designs)

["Adam 'WeirdArms' Wiggins" <awiggins@cse.unsw.edu.au>]

On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Richard Stallman wrote:

> 	    The thing that I've not understood is why this is a problem? The
>     restrictions you mention seems to be just as applicable in the GPL,
> 
> I am pretty sure that is not true.  There is nothing in the way we use
> of software which is legally analogous to building a piece of hardware
> from a hardware design.

	The schematic layout is analogous to the source code, the compiled
binary analogous to the physical hardware. At least thats where I was
comming from. The analogy hold for the example I want to put forward. Just
as someone can look at GPL code and write it from scratch they can look at
a schematic and redo it. 
 > >
it you
>     can't restrict what someone does with the end program, only how they
>     modify the specifically GPL'd source code. 
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by "does with the end program".  I am not
> sure what an "end program" means, either.
> 
	Sorry, I was vague there. By the end program I mean the compiled
binary, ie what runs on the machine. You can't (or at least I don't think
the GPL tries to) restrict what the user does with the program. Ie
someone can use gcc to compile proprietary code, run closed source
programs ontop of Linux etc. So what I meant what the user does with the
binary is not covered by the GPL only the source (in some vague way the
'a description of the design') can be covered.

	On the note of communication (at least speaking for myself) I
imagine most of the free hardware community is equally trainned in both
software and hardware, unfortunately the same is not true for the software
community. Also as my writting skills arn't the best so may be a little
vague sometimes, please just say if I don't make sence on an issue.

	BTW does anyone else have any comments on what I've said so far?

	Cheers Adam