Re: Rep:Re: [f-cpu] The last killing argument FOR the GPL licence

[Michael Riepe <michael@stud.uni-hannover.de>]

On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 03:57:14PM +0200, nico wrote:
> Some point to discuss ! Great !
[...]
> >         - use parts of the source code in their own projects if they
> >           release the source code under the same license and include a
> >           notice that they are using parts of the F-CPU
> 
> Biip ! That's not permit by the GPL. The GPL FAQ explain that's not
> possible for a pratical point of view. You must maintain a list of
> contribution and will become very heavy to manage. That's why there is a
> new BDB licence without the obligation of the copyright.

Since we're not talking about the GPL but about the (hypothetical)
"F-CPU Public License", that shouldn't matter. On the other hand, I
don't mind if we drop this point and force people to include either
the full package or nothing.

What does BDB mean?

> > 
> >         - substitute parts (e.g. gates, flipflops, maybe also memory)
> >           with cells from proprietary cell libraries if it is necessary
> >           in order to produce silicon (they shall, however, fully document
> >           such changes)
> >
> 
> That's the very interresting point. Allowed user to rewrite part of the
> design wihtout distribute the change only to use technological cell's
> librairy (memroy,...). We must take car that the definition must be
> clear because it's very easy to create a design, make it a black box and
> say it come from a "proprietary cell libraries".
> 
> I don't speak about gate-level which is like the compilition of the
> work. 

We can add the restriction that users must provide (under the terms of
our License) functionally equivalent VHDL source code for all substituted
parts that contain more than single logic gates or "storage elements"
(that is, latches, flipflops and RAM cells).

> >         - produce silicon and distribute it, as long as they also
> >           deliver the source code for everything but the above mentioned
> >           proprietary cell libraries (the source code for the substituted
> >           components must still be included)
> >
> 
> Maybe the fact to sell producte ( a system from the GPL point of view)
> give the obligation to distribute the code as well.

Again, we're not talking about GPL any longer. (Otherwise, we had
nothing to talk about, because the GPL is fixed and we're not allowed
to change it.)

-- 
 Michael "Tired" Riepe <Michael.Riepe@stud.uni-hannover.de>
 "All I wanna do is have a little fun before I die"
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@seul.org with
unsubscribe f-cpu       in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/