Le vendredi 24 novembre 2006 à 22:55 +0100, Lourens Veen a écrit : > To me, the OHF seal of approval should mean that the hardware is open, > meaning you get the design in editing format (HDL, XCF, Autocad, > whatever) and the usual rights along with it. There could be a second, > lesser "open standards compliant" seal of approval, which would > guarantee that Free/open firmware/drivers can be made. I think that this second seal of approval is as important as the first (see below) > > Whether any non-hardware parts of the product are open and/or open > standards compliant is up to others to decide. > snip > > > I think it's hard to make a clear definition here. How is firmware > > > different from software? > > > > I don't think there is a principal difference. Two different > > architectures, one of which might be pretty exotic. > > Okay, there seems to be agreement on that. So firmware is software, not > part of the hardware. > > Lourens
I agree too but, and that was my fear indeed, not your, one should not base the rule upon some definition which reflects mainly the actual state of art. Today, firmware is software but maybe not tomorrow. Hence, it's not just a matter to having an opened HDL code, it should also be stated that nothing does impair the rights granted. I guess that the GPL v2 or 3 covers 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)
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
