OPENCORES.ORG

As far as I know the world's most successful open source designs are for 
  SPARC-derived processors, and all the Leon chips, OpenSparc etc are 
under versions of the GPL.
[rih] SPARC itself isn't released under a GPL license, and the newer LEON
processors aren't released under a GPL license either (LEON V3 is).

So the distinction isn't in what's usable, it's in what the author's 
intentions are.
[rih] Yes, of course.
I want my cores to be used, so ... ;)

Richard

Cheers
Graham

> 
> Personally I don't mind what a user does with my cores. They can use them
as
> they feel fit. And many of my cores have been implemented in ASICs, I know
> for sure as I receive testimonies of companies successfully using them.
> I also know for sure that part of the success is due to the simple and
> straightforward licensing scheme;
> -the core is provided as is
> -use at your own risk; do not sue me if it doesn't work
> -do not remove the disclaimer
> -do not remove the copyright
> No restrictions on reproduction, usability, or modifications.
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cores-bounces@o... [mailto:cores-bounces@o...] On
> Behalf Of Attila Kinali
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:30 AM
> To: Discussion list about free open source IP cores
> Subject: Re: [oc] GPLv3 usable for open HW
> 
> Hoi Christoph,
> 
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:56:54 +0200 (CEST)
> nussgipfel@b... wrote:
> 
>> it was a bit frustrating, because all these software guys only thing
>> about software and none of  theme thinks beyond one's own nose :-)
> 
> Well, yes. But i can tell you that defining a license that works
> equally well for hardware as GPL does for software is quite hard.
> OHF is now struggling quite some time to come up with something
> usable.
>  
>> have i understood the new GPLv3 right? is it realy so general applicable
>> as i think?
> 
> If you think you've understood GPLv3, read again ;-)
>  
> I've read the GPLv3 three times already, but i still have
> the impression that i miss something important. The language
> is for me as a non-native quite difficult to understand by itself.
> On top of that come the legal issues and relations to other licenses.
> 
> My biggest concernes so far are that GPLv3 might not be GPLv2 compatible.
> I cannot pinpoint why, but the whole text leaves that feeling.
> I also have some doubts whether section 6 (non-Tivioization clause)
> and section 11 (patents) solve more problems than they create.
> I have the impression, that the FSF tries more to force their
> religion onto other people than creating a clear, comprehensible
> and generally working license that people just can use without
> needing to put a lot of thought into it whether they might saw
> off the branch they are sitting on.
> 
> IMHO i wouldn't use GPLv3 for now. Not until some time
> has passed and there has been some explanation on how
> this overly unintelligable license is to be interpreted.
> 
> Beside, the GPLv3 has still the same problems for hardware
> as GPLv2 has. It still talks about linking programs and
> combining work. They define some core system as license
> boundary to be able to combine GPL system core with non-gpl
> software and vice versa. Although that might also work for
> hardware, there are many more levels involved. Ie, if you
> do a GPL HDL design, is producing an ASIC using it a "linking"
> operation in the software sense? Probably. But consider the
> case where you have two ASICs on a board that are wired together,
> one GPL the other not. Are they "linked" together? Probably not.
> Now we put both ASICs into a multi chip package. Or we even
> combine them on the same die. Is now the GPL violated? And
> where is the limit when integration becomes "linking"?
> 
> And this problem repeats itself across the several layers
> of electronics design (IP cores, die, package, board, system).
> 
> Gruess
> 
> 			Attila Kinali
> 

_______________________________________________
http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores