On 8/1/06, Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For example, there's the question as to whether shipping a
device manufacture from a GPL design constitutes "distribution
of an executable". It's debatable whether this invokes the
copyleft, requiring the distributor to make the source code
available.
IMHO, It IS distribution of a binary, but that binary is limited to
its own "process space" and therefore does not affect other chips on
the same board. That is, the pins on the chip should be seen as a
"published API" and therefore a barrier between copyright licenses.
Any software code ("library") that's distributed for the chip is
considered to be "linked" into the "user app" and is licensed
separately.
Like anything, this can be abused. For instance, we want to fund
Traversal (and by extension, the OHF) in part by selling commercial
licenses to some of our IP. The PCI controller is a good example of
this. Someone could fab their own ASIC with just this controller on
it, releasing the RTL appropriately under GPL, and then aggregate this
with other chips on their board, avoiding paying us the license fee.
If they're doing this just for themselves, they'll actually cost
themselves MORE by trying to fab two chips instead of one. If they
were intending to mass-produce this chip, that could be bad for us,
but we'd end up getting something back. It could really hurt our
sales of the IP, but in some ways, we just kinda have to live with
that odd risk+benefit combination.
One philosophical issue to consider is when a chip (containing GPL'd
logic) is "merely aggregated" with other chips or is something they
all depend on or is an integral component.
Also, what happens when you plug a GPL'd hardware card into
a proprietary PC. Can you sell it? Or do you have to provide
"source" for the entire PC (because it is a "derivative or
combined work" -- this makes as much sense as the
application of copyleft to dynamically-linked libraries!).
I would call this aggregation. In some ways, it's like including The
Open CD in the box with a Windows PC, although the card would already
be installed. A proprietary PC is exactly where we want to sell this
hardware, so let's not interfere with that.
Also, we should consider this: By paying to buy the hardware, you
implicitly are getting some rights that you wouldn't if you just
downloaded the IP. When you buy one of our graphics cards, I think we
should say that you have the right to use THAT CARD wherever, however
you want. This is similar to getting a commercial license for the IP
from Traversal. You're PAYING for additional rights.
IMHO, putting a graphics card into a PC is not like linking
applications together. It's more like having two independent
applications that end up communicating with each other via an open
standard protocol or API (in this case, the PCI bus). The fact that
we consider a graphics card to be critical to the function of a PC is
a completely separate issue and is at the wrong level of abstraction.
Where the GPL is vague like this, you could make solid
requirements for the use of a certification mark. The mark
would then mean not only that the license was compatible,
but also that the company was behaving according to the
"good citizen rules" of open hardware. You can afford to
be tighter about these, because the company isn't legally
bound by these rules -- they just have to follow them to get
your approval. In other words, it's a reputation issue
rather than a legal one. The OHGPL might be a good starting
point for establishing such standards of behavior.
This, what you're describing, is an absolute must. It's one of the
few ways we have to protect against people legally using our IP in a
way that causes us trouble.
Of course, it's probably worth noting that the GPL won't be
what it used to be after this year is up, and I suspect the
whole DRM-clause issue will be a pretty flaming hot topic
amongst hardware developers. ;-)
We're able to avoid it for now. But it will become a sticky issue.
I'm certainly not going to en-DRM anything. But we may be able to get
away with de-DRMing things. Also, we may find ourselves having to use
an older version of the GPL.
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
