Lourens Veen wrote:
<SNIP>
Therefore I believe that we need an Open Hardware Definition. We need to
know what it means, philosophically and in practice, for hardware to be
open.
My take on the taxonomy of hardware:
I see Open (Source) Hardware as hardware for which the source code is
published in a hardware logic language (including adaptions of 'C').
Yes, this can by CopyLefted. If the current GPL needs some modification
to be totally applicable to hardware, they we need to work it and issue
the GPL for Hardware -- the HGPL.
Perhaps we might also need an LHGPL.
Or, the Open Hardware could be licensed under the modified BSD license:
You can do anything with this that you want except you can't claim you
wrote it. But, you are not required to say who did write it.
Then there is proprietary hardware that has full documentation. This
should include what every bit and every register and instruction (except
those reserved for testing) does. If the hardware executes code, this
should have the same level of documentation as the instruction set of a
MPU. As chips become more complex, it appears that additional
information is needed on exactly how to use the chip for its intended
purpose -- a programmer's guide is needed. What should we call this?
Open Documented Hardware.
There are some companies that seem to fall a little or a lot below the
Open Documented Hardware standard but still provide documentation. So,
there is a gray area between this and the next. So, there is hardware
which has some documentation but which is not fully documented.
Then there is closed hardware. I think that we all know what this is --
hardware without documentation.
Note: I am still alive. I have been ill and haven't been doing much.
--
JRT
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
