OPENCORES.ORG

hi everybody

nussgipfel@b... wrote:
> hi everybody
>
> i know that the cores mailinglist is not the best place for this
> discussion but on opencores there is no better list and any other
> place/project on the net is more or less sleeping (the license
> disussion on opencollectors.org is death since 3 years...)

I closed the mailing list when I realised no-one was seriously interested in
the topic and I couldn't be bothered dealing with the spam levels for a dying
list.

Richard's point that the bsd is good enough is true in one way: if your goals
are those of the bsd, then you don't need a special license for hardware, use
the bsd or similar. It's only if you want something more that you have
problems; and then the problems aren't fundamentally legal (the odds on open
source designers actually sueing any big manufacturer are tiny) but social:
what do you want to use the license to push users towards doing, and how
practical is it. For me it was always providing end user repair/interfacing
information with the manufactured end device, but most people seem to have
other goals more closely connected with the source of the design (eg.
requiring publishing of derivatives) which are the same as those of free
software writers. I always had trouble understanding quite how that's
supposed to work for hardware designs. And also whether there is such a thing
as a generic 'hardware design' which a single license will always fit.

If you want a license discussion mailing list back, I don't mind doing it, if
people have something new to say :-)

Graham

>
> i'm working on a new fpga integrator board (small board for development
> and to be integrated into the final product). in these context i gone
> through all the licenses published on opensource.org last week to find
> one that is usable for open/free hardware, like schematics, pcb files
> and production data.
>
> it was a bit frustrating, because all these software guys only thing
> about software and none of  theme thinks beyond one's own nose :-)
>
> the traditional way is to use the creative commons license for these
> things i want to license. during my search i realised that the new
> GPLv3 is now usable "for software and any other work".
>
> my idea is now to use the (L)GPLv3 for my whole board, from schematic to
> the board support software.
>
> my question now and the reason why i write here is:
>
> have i understood the new GPLv3 right? is it realy so general applicable
> as i think?
>
> it would be nice to have a short discussion about these with people who
> read some parts of the new (L)GPLv3.
>
> greetings
> christoph zimmermann
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores