Re: [oc] New License update

[John Dalton <johnd@southern-poro.com>]

Hi Jamil (+ the rest of open cores),

> 1. This license is based on LGPL where so based works
> and derivative works can be under any license.

With respect, you are wrong on this (fundamental) point
Jamil.  Section 2 c) of the LGPL requires any derived works to
be distributed under the terms of the LGPL.  The LGPL is different
from the GPL in that it allows linking to non-free code.

A GPL style license would prohibit combining free and non-free
blocks in a design.  Hence non-free and free circuits could not live
in the same chip.  A LGPL style license would still require changes
to be distributed, but would allow free and non-free blocks to be
on the same chip.

> this change is upon request from commercial
> community so as to enable them to implement the
> open source design which may need some changes for the
> implementation that can not be revealed by them.

This opens up some deep philosophical questions, which
are discussed at length on the Free Software Foundation's
site (www.gnu.org).  One needs to ask the question 'why
am I doing this?'  Of course different people will have
different answers.  For me, part of the answer is to
make people realize that a culture of secrecy is
counterproductive.

> 2. we need another license like the old one to put
> more restrictions on the derived and based works

I Agree.  Ultimately it is the designer's choice which
license they use.  If multiple licences are provided,
with plain English explanations of the implications
of each, time will tell which, if any, approach is
preferred.

> yes I am not a lawyer

Neither am I.  I am just very interested in the area,
as I think a decent license is the foundation on which
an open or free system is built (in the absence of
assuming everyone gives as they receive).

> the GPL protects only programs which is not our case.
>
> Anyhow the openhardware protection is more complecated
> than that because here we provide a copyright
> protection for the design files only and so we can not
> restrict anyone from implementing the design itself
> which should be covered by patents or NDA

Agree.  It is not yet clear in my mind what legal
foundation opencores has.

As you say, I do not think it is possible to restrict
anyone from implementing a design, or rewriting
a design to circumvent any copyright on it.

A design can be protected with a patent, but I do not think
patent make sense for a free design.  If you are going to
release rights to a patent, why not just claim prior art?

I would think that, with possible minor modifications of wording, the
GPL could cover anything which can be copyrighted.  Perhaps
someone can produce a generic version of the GPL, which
can be applied directly to any type of file?

The problem is not that the GPL is inadequate for designs, but that
copyright does not protect designs.  I would assert that the GPL
can provide the maximum possible protection available under copyright.

Maybe the way to go is a two pronged approach:
1) GPL to cover the design sources.
2) Claiming prior art to prevent patent restrictions on implementation.

Of course this does not prevent someone from selling implementations
of a design, or rewriting a design to avoid copyright.  Assuming freedom

of design, in my view, anyone is quite entitled to do either of these
things.  In fact the GNU project relies on having these rights.  GNU
works because:
1) Competition keeps the price of an implementation to a minimum.
2) The time taken to rewrite a design makes option 2 commercially
unattractive.

If opencores has a downfall, it could be these two points.


I hope this is a positive contribution to the discussion.

Regards
John Dalton