[cc-community] Open Hardware Licence

Greg London email at greglondon.com
Fri May 8 11:46:48 EDT 2009


> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 11:01:08 +0100
> From: Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
> Subject: Re: [cc-community] Open Hardware Licence
> To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> Cc: email at greglondon.com
> Message-ID: <20090508110108.451d7a00 at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
>> lot of time explaining to me why I shouldn't call it "open"
>> hardware instead of calling it "free", which soooo missed the point.
>
> In your opinion -

Listen, bub. Who the hell's opinion are YOU giving right now?

Are you speaking for FSF? Or are you talking out your pie hole
like everyone else here? Cause if you're just talking out your
pie hole like everyone else, then aren't you doing nothing more
than giving *your* opinion about my opinion?

pot. kettle. black.


> the FSF has spent a long time forumlated its viewpoints

argument ad antiquitem.

> You appear rather confused.

And you are coming off as a rather pompus git.


> No private derivatives is contrary to everything
> the FSF believe in

Fine. That doesn't help open hardware.
And telling me I should call it "free" hardware
instead of open hardware is wasting my time.

in my opinion.

> Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 16:17:38 +0100
> From: Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
> Subject: Re: [cc-community] Open Hardware Licence
> To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> Cc: email at greglondon.com
> Message-ID: <20090508161738.2ee8a6d6 at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
>> Because the physical chip is not a copyright derivative.
>
> How does copyright law apply to the chip in the first place - derivative
> or not ?

Seriously? You're lecturing me about "freedom" and
how my "opinion" needs to subjugate to FSF's
"long time to formulate its viewpoints",
and you don't even understand the problem????

Are you kidding me?

Chips are designed startign from source code.
Source code like verilog or VHDL.
This goes through a tool that converts it into
transistors, silicon, and metal.

The source code is protected by copyright.
The silicon isn't.

The source code can be licensed under something
like GNU-GPL. the silicon can't.

If an open hardware project has some source code
downloaded by a vendor, who then modifies it,
improves it or whatever, turns it into an asic,
and then releases the asic, they are not required
to also release the source code as well.

Because the silicon is not a copyright derivative.

And because every license but APSL requires that
a derivative be *distributed* before the copyleft
kicks in. And an ASIC isn't a distribution. So
copyleft NEVER kicks in for code put into an asic.



>> at the same level as open software, then
>> open hardware MUST prohibit private derivatives.
>> i.e. APSL.
>
> If it in fact does that for hardware.

Jumping jeehosifat. You think I'm just making this up?

> At least in my case the etch itself is a creative work
> so copyright does apply, a lot of hardware doesn't even
> have that luxury.

In the case of ASICs, it always starts with source
code of some kind or another.

Just so you know, I am not a lawyer. But.
I'm fairly familiar with copyright law and with a bunch
of different FLOS licenses. I'm also an electrical
engineer, so I'm aware of the issues of where the
copyright work ends and the physical device begins.

http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/index.htm
http://www.greglondon.com/libre/index.htm

What I don't need is some random guy lecturing me
about "free" versus "open". I was around when that
fight started years ago.

So you can stop wasting my time about pointless
vocabulary or why I should worship at the alter
of FSF.







More information about the cc-community mailing list