Re: [f-cpu] last news about licence

[nicO <nicolas.boulay@ifrance.com>]

Yann Guidon a écrit :
> 
> hi !
> 
> nicO wrote:
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> > I just have a big conversation about the licende issue with Mélanie
> > Clément Fontaine. She's a lawyer who make a thesis about the
> > applicability of the GPL to the french law.
> 
> how did you finally succeed ? i would love to be part of the discussion :-)

It's mainly by phone. She's very busy (3 weeks to reach her !!)

> 
> > It was hard (;p) to explain all the issue of the hardware compare to the
> > software. But the result are there. So the source code is protected as
> > in the software world.
> 
> As authors, it is a minimum : our copyright and author rights can be enforced
> and the project is protected.
> 
> > There is also a protection on the mask file
> > (GDS2) because you could only produice it with the previous code. So
> > using GS2 file to by pass the licence, isn't really possible.
> 
> this is where the story is getting more complex, right...
> 
> > So if we use the GPL it's impossible to mix it with proprietary
> > code (so we can't distribut it as an ip).
> i thought that GPL was good only for software ? so the linking mechanisms
> and some definitions of the GPL don't apply.
>

It's apply the same. It's about source code which produice binaries
which describe hardware. So hardware is behind this step and does not
bother us.
 
> > If we use the LGPL, it's possible (as for library) to use with other
> > type of code.
> i am not particularly fond of this solution, as others know.
> LGPL is often understood as "weak" GPL and it can be perceived as
> a wrong signal.
>

Yep, but in software world. There is no OS in hardware.
 
> let's remember that F-CPU was not started as an "IP core project"
> in the beginning btw.
> 
> > Or we can create all knew licence, with the definition of interface
> > (API). But we will have problem to write it without a lawyer.
> i prefer this way. This will be the occasion to define everything
> in the right context and probably start from a new, non-GNU, ground.
>

One more ? I think there is far too much open sources licence and i
beleive that's not a good point to write a good one one more time. I
find 2 new licences ( www.systemc.org and www.testbuilder.org ) for
tools for hardware design (c++ class) but i can't say if it's really
free or BSD-like or MS-like.
 
It will be the same for new comer : try to understand what is really our
licence.

> > As you should know i prefer to use a licence to distribut the fcpu as an IP.
> can you be more precise about "a licence" ?
> 

The right that you give to the other (GPL said some thing as : "i give
you the same right as me but you take away my own right.")

> > So i suggest to translate our current licence to LPGL. It's possible
> > because only Michael, Whygee and Cedric had written code. They own the
> > copyright on there code.  So there knew code version could use LGPL
> > licence.
> 
> I do not think that it will magically solve our problem.
> 

What's are the remaining problem ? The bad image of the LGPL ?

> > Comments ?
> 
> it is still a hot topic :-)
> thanks for restarting this discussion,
>

de rien ;D
 nicO
> > nicO
> WHYGEE (trying to cleanup his f-cpu source file tree)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> PS: i CC: to the hardlicense-discuss mailing list, as it might be
> of interest to others.
> *************************************************************
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@seul.org with
> unsubscribe f-cpu       in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@seul.org with
unsubscribe f-cpu       in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/