I think you miss my point. Most of goods are derivative forme of work of copyrighted materials.
But a licence can't have an effect on the way to use the product. A licence on copyright could restrict you lot of things but not the use of a goods. When you buy a CD you only have a right to listen it, you have no right on the copyrighted materials, but you can resell the CD or give it to a friend. The trick on the GPL about the derivative form of work can't be extended to the tangible world. In the GPL, it's the use of the software that give you the right to have the source code. Every object came from plan but plan licence can't affect the use of the object. 2006/10/4, Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Nicolas Boulay wrote: > 2006/10/4, Lourens Veen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > So, it isn't the case that the ASIC mask is derived from the HDL, > > and the actual chip is derived from the ASIC mask, producing chips > > is copying the copyrighted design and selling them is distribution? > > No because GPL is a licence based on copyright laws, a goods is not > covered by copyright law. Actually, this is wrong. Copyrighted copies *are* goods too, and copyright certainly does apply to them. The thing that makes the copyright law applicable is that these goods convey information.
They carry it but a licence on the information can't affect the use of the object (software have a separate law for that). In the OH world, you will have 3 tier not 2. The user, the free hdl writer and the builder. The idea is how to force the builder to give back any hdl code modification to the user. GPL permit a lot of it (until GDSII file given to the factory). If it was possible to do it, you will have condition of use for goods : for exemple sony could sell you camera that must be use only with sony battery (lucky guys...), etc. _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
