Re: gEDA-user: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)

[asomers@xxxxxxxxx]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Dave N6NZ <n6nz@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Jul 14, 2010, at 7:46 PM, Windell H. Oskay wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 14, 2010, at 7:36 PM, Ales Hvezda wrote:
>>>
>>> And my usual questions:
>>>
>>> http://lwn.net/Articles/396011/
>>
>> I've had some part in this.   Whether or not proprietary design files can be compatible with open source hardware has been an active topic of debate, even amongst the people writing that draft definition.   It's a tough, tough call, for all the reasons that Bunnie mentions.
>>
>> I think that the proper place to resolve this issue is in the actual *licenses,* which as with OSS may vary from permissive to restrictive.  I'd like to see the evolution of at least one OSHW license where a requirement is that the design files for the project-- and its derivative works --need to be in open, documented formats.
>>
> That's the right answer -- let there be a battle of licenses.  Although hopefully, it is a small set and we avoid the "license salad" issues that have sprung up in software.  I, too, want to see (and would use) a license where all source files for all aspects of the design are in open, documented formats, but that isn't going to be to everyone's liking or practical in all cases.
>
> But also, I'd like to point out that just having an open & documented source language isn't really enough.  What I really want in the end is a 100% open source tool chain, and simply having an open file format isn't sufficient.  Example: FPGA's.  Verilog source isn't going to help if the FPGA fitter tool proprietary.  So (thinking out loud) maybe some kind of license that says the file format documentation *and* sources (or mirror pointers) for all the development tools are a required part of the distribution source.

I too _want_ a 100% open source tool chain, but it's not going to
happen anytime soon and I don't think it's appropriate to insist upon
it in a license.  If a developer wants his work to be maximally free,
he should ensure that it _can_ be built with an open-source toolchain,
but not that it _must_.  Example: GCC and various GNU/Linux utilities.
 No software license that I'm aware of requires the use of an
open-source compiler.  Most open-source users choose to use GCC, but a
minority compile with icc, armcc, or some other proprietary compiler.
But the openness of GCC is such a draw that it completely dominates
development of open-source C projects.  GCC does not need license
restrictions to compete with icc or armcc.  Similarly, if there were
an open-source FPGA fitter that worked worth a damn, users would
switchover in droves.

Furthermore, I'm not sure how one would require an open-source
toolchain in a software license.  Remember, we are talking about
licenses, not contracts.  A license can only grant privileges; it
cannot restrict a user more than copyright law already restricts.  Any
restrictions that you want to place in a license must typically be
restrictions on redistribution.  So would your license require a
developer to ship the source code of his FPGA fitter on demand to
anyone who downloads his verilog LED blinker?  I for one am glad that
I don't have to ship the source code of the Python interpreter (and
libraries) just because I distribute an open source program written in
the Python language.

-Alan

>
> -dave
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> geda-user mailing list
> geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
>


_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user