[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [f-cpu] License issues GPL/LGPL and Juergen Goeritz' SoC

On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 01:59:48PM -0400, nicO wrote:
> > > > However, it is useful for small quantities
> > > > (around 1K-100K) runs concerning high-speed control, such as
> > > > the SCSI or IP router example. Small companies would adopt F-CPU
> > > > easily because the price tag and the independence from the toolset
> > > > are "attracting" (to reuse your word). I think that it is where
> > > > we can seek implementors.
> > >
> > > Yep, if they can earn money, and there work will not be stolen as
> > > explain by Michael.
> > this means that we are in the case where the company's "central activity"
> > is not making CPUs but using them.
> >
> ??? It's evident : how many compagny make cpu ? Few dosen ? How many use
> them ? thousand ?

I guess the term `use' has to be clarified, too.  IMHO, `using the F-CPU'
can only mean `running the processor' -- no matter how it's implemented.
This kind of use should not be restricted by us at all, and must not be
restricted by others, in order to maintain users' freedom.  This is what
the GPL means when it says `you may use the program freely'.

Implementing the F-CPU is another kind of `use', but not in the GPL sense.
People can translate/compile/transform the F-CPU source code, with or
without modifications, and create pieces of silicon (or GaAs, or GeSi, or
something totally different in the future), bit-streams for loading into
an FPGA, or programs that run on another processor (simulators/emulators).

Most people can't do that on their kitchen table -- they will have to
ask somebody else to do it.  That's the big difference between the HW
and SW worlds.  Since the manufacturing company acts like a compiler
in the SW world, it can't be considered a `user' of the F-CPU -- it's
the company's client who will be responsible for changing SR_URL and
releasing his modifications under the terms of the GPL.  In particular,
the manufacturing company will NOT be forced to release source code for
their technology libraries or details of their manufacturing process.
They are not bound by the GPL at all, as long as they ONLY build chips
for somebody else.

 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/