> I'm in favor of GPL'ing the RTL (of course, as the developer of that > RTL, you, and by extension TechSource retain the right to re-liscense > it any way you see fit). MySQL and Trolltech seem to be doing well > under this model. >
be carefull. I don't remember where i read the discussion (here or on opencores ml). hardware are not software for the law. For us, there is no a lot of difference. Binary/source code are quite the same for layer. So you could ask source to repsect the gpl for software. In hardwar, the product must have the rtl easly accessable. I don't think that copyright could permit to make a licence on the use of an object. Imagine : somebody (A) use your GPL core, make a chip, deliver the rtl code, and then sell them to a big reseller (B). Does the licence on the rtl code apply to B ? GPL work if it does. If it does not, you will have a problem. Maybe something could be added to the licence of the RTL : like the rtl code must be part of the product to use the code. So if the producer keep away the rtl from the product, he can't use the gpl code anymore. Then, the producer could be force the reseller to sell the complete product. If copyright is too weak, maybe the specific law of "hardware topology of circuit" could apply. I did not have much information about it. It look like a kind of patents for 6 years. > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:33:05 -0500, Timothy Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> Another item to be considered is military applications. Military >> users may not appreciate the idea that some part of their ultra-secret >> device will become public knowledge at some point in the future. military use rtems which is open source. So what is the problem ? nicO _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
