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. -dave _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
