On 9/6/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/6/05, Attila Kinali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 08:18:36 -0400
> >> Timothy Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > (7) An implementation of this Work that is considered analogous to a
> > "binary distribution" is defined as any form that is not easily
> > readable by humans ("non-preferred"), which includes, but is not
> > limited to: Fixed-function IC (e.g. ASIC), fixed-function IC masks
> > or other fabrication intermediate step, variable-function IC (e.g.
> > FPGA), FPGA bitfile, compiled or translated simulation model.
>
> This is not legal. That's the problem where a layers is needed.
>
> "our work" : code, documentation,... are protected by copyright law. A
> licence is maid for "copyrighted work".
>
> A "good" is not relevant to the copyright law, so you can't apply a
> "licence" on it. Maybe you could find a trick that do the same thing. But
> a judge will never consider a chip as a derivative work of your code
> because a derivative work is from the copyright domain.
You can copyright Verilog code, and you can copyright a mask, and you
can find that the mask is clearly a translation of the Verilog code,
so shouldn't the copyright call on that too?
If I write something in English, and you translate it to French, have
you not written a derivative work?
>
> Beside that, you should keep the world or maid a reference to the GPL for
> that part, it's more complete.
How should I do that?
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
