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

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

Michael Riepe a écrit :
> 
> 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'.
> 


That's true. But GPL means that the compagny should release it's own
code, too. Imagine an fft bloc to make fast encoding for a communication
system. 12 Months of work. 

If they want to use fcpu, they should release under the GPL code. Great
for us ! But for them, do they want to take the risk that there opponent
develop there chip with there work ? They just need to copy there work
without adding any value.

I stay at the VHDL level. For my part, i prefer that they use fcpu
instead of an ARM. I prefer that they debug a fcpu rather than we try to
keep another design because they choose to use an fcpu.

> 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.
>


I know that and it's not the problem at all !

nicO
 
> --
>  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/
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@seul.org with
unsubscribe f-cpu       in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/