Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Saturday 19 March 2005 05:19 am, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 18 Mar 2005, at 20:43, Greg London wrote:
> > Yes, but the crux of the matter is whether or not
> > code-turned-into-silicon is a derived work or use.
> > I'd view it as a cookie-recipe-turned-into-a-cookie,
>
> It's a cookie recipe translated into French and recorded on CD.
>
> Or the film of a book on video tape.
>
> Is loading a program from CD into RAM derivation or use? Is the copy in
> memory covered by copyright? Howabout if it's Java bytecodes on a ROM
> and they are then JIT-compiled to native binary?
>
> A compiled FGPA setup or the image for a ROM is a binary, shipping it
> is distribution. The medium is irrelevent. You could decompile it to
> the code (or the derived intermediate representaion).
>
> >> I am very ignorant here, but I will point out that
> >> hardware firewall/router manufacturers are feeling
> >> the GPLs effects.
> >
> > the link is pretty vague, but it sounded like
> > violations with embedded software, not the
> > hardware.

I think this may have been the jumping off point for a good part of the 
thread/questions I have been asking.
>
> Yes. Hardware is just a medium for software.
>
> There's no vanishing point where someone can still be identifiably
> using code but the GPL doesn't apply.
>
> If they don't want to get software gratis they can always pay to write
> their own. ;-)
>
This would be my take for this instance, but we also got into the asic 
example 
which goes further back to the opencores quesiont iirc. Why would cores 
created from the copyrighted designs be different from ROMs created from 
copyrighted designs.

I think this is where Greg introduced the idea of a cake baked from a recipe.

Am I explaining this clear enough for you to follow?

all the best,

drew