Re: changes made/thanks (re hardware designs)

[Graham Seaman <graham@collector.hscs.wmin.ac.uk>]

> 
>     I had been working with a different analogy: schematic layout corresponds
>     to source, gerber file corresponds to binary, physical hardware corresponds
>     to CD with executable program on it.
> 
> That analogy makes sense, and might be useful for some purposes.  But
> it is not useful for copyright issues, because copyright does not
> treat the two cases in analogous ways.  The CD with an executable
> program is copyrightable and therefore is covered by copyright.  The
> physical hardware is not.
> 
I'm afraid I don't understand either the full meaning or the consequences
of this.

1) Is the CD covered by a separate copyright from the copyright applied
to the separate programs it contains (eg as a collection organised in a 
particular way)? I had a quick check and my Debian CD doesn't appear
to have any copyright file separate from the copyright files covering
the individual programs. 

2) One result of licensing free designs that I would like to see is that
if a manufacturer uses a free design for manufacture of a part, when that
part is distributed the license constrains him to provide a pointer to
the design used. I saw this as a constraint on the use of the schematic,
HDL file etc. Is it actually a constraint on the physical hardware and
so unenforceable?

3) More a question for others on the list than for rms: apart from
possibly 2) above, I don't believe anyone wanted to constrain use of the
physical hardware itself rather than use of the schematic etc. Is this
correct?

Graham