> Did you mean to email me privately? If not, feel free to forward my > reply to the list. In fact, I'm sure many would like to participate > in this discussion.
Yeah, I guess it went private by mistake. I'll just leave the whole conversation quoted in this email then so others can follow if they want. > On 3/3/06, tsuraan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The "PCI code" is a piece of copyrightable material. It amounts to a > > > human-readable representation of circuitry whose purpose is to > > > communicate between your design and a host computer. To use it, you > > > would have to "link" the PCI logic to your design. > > > > > > This is where the viral nature of the GPL takes effect: If you use > > > this board and our PCI core to develop some other product, you are > > > designing something that is inseparably dependent on our copylefted > > > work. The instant you "release" this composite design, you are bound > > > by the terms of the GPL (or any other license by which you get this > > > IP). > > > > I would certainly say that if I write some verilog that uses your PCI > > controller, then redistribution of that code requires adherence to the > > PCI controller's source license. By the terms of the GPL, "compiled" > > forms of the design (bitfiles?) would also have to respect your > > license. But, if I take those bitfiles and use them to burn in an > > ASIC, is selling that piece of hardware equal to distributing > > software? > > Logic in chips is copyrightable. That's been established. In > addition, if all you did was resynthesize the Verilog for the ASIC, > then clearly, the logic in the ASIC is a derivative work of the > Verilog code. (All you've done is translate it, mechanically no > less.) > > > I don't actually know the physical process of how an ASIC > > is formed, so maybe the bit files are just there in a PROM on the > > ASIC, but if it's actual hardware that's being shaped based off the > > data in the bitfile, then I don't know if its distribution has to > > follow the license of the original source. > > I would think so. > > > I know I can sell NVidia graphics cards without having a license to > > the NVidia GPU's firmware and hardware designs. > > Yeah, but you didn't COPY the GPU. By selling an nVidia chip, you are > just reselling something you've already paid nVidia for. On the other > hand, if you were to use steal their HDL code or use a microscope to > analyze their ASIC and then just copied it, you'd be in violation of > copyright. That distinction does make sense to me. There is quite a difference between selling a device and selling copies of a device :) > > I don't really see > > how you could keep an unethical company from doing the same with > > hardware made from your design. I'm not trying to annoy you or weasel > > out of your license; I just really want to see the open graphics > > project succeed, and my hardware design skills are somewhat lacking... > > Yes. Proving that someone's copied your chip is very challenging. > This is surely one of the major reasons why hardware developers do not > share their HDL. The OGP and Traversal are taking a major risk doing > it this way. We have copyright law on our side, but physics is > another matter. > > You might say that one of the reasons that we're releasing our > hardware HDL under GPL is that the community demanded it. If that > turns out to be a bad decision, and it ruins our plans for developing > open hardware, they have only themselves to blame. Yeah, I do hope it doesn't turn out to be a bad idea. My biggest fear is still lack of interest on the part of customers, but with things like $20k pci controllers being sold by Traversal, maybe you guys really do have a good chance at making it in the business side :) _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
