I think we're approaching a convergence. How about a set of definitions along the lines of:
Open spec hardware: hardware whose interface specifications (electrical, mechanical, logical) are published, sufficiently that it can be designed into a system, and programmed if applicable Open design hardware: hardware whose internal design is published, and licensed in a way that allows modification, republication, and physical realization by others Libre design hardware: open design hardware whose license does not permit further restriction when modified, republished, manufactured, or distributed Open design information, if dual-licensed, would be accompanied by its original license if modified and redistributed under its open license (GPL or whatever). -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "Timothy Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 11/24/06, Hamie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > 1. Does an open (e.g. fully documented) register interface and instructions > > (mnemomnics and assembly) constitute as at least partially open hardware? > > This would include most microprocessors... And possibly be a contenscious > > issue with many people... > > I would call that "Fully documented hardware". > > > > > 2. Or does open hardware to people mean you have to include the rights to > > copy > > at the HDL level? > > That is what I'd call "open hardware". > > > 3. Somewhere between... Where does closed firmware come into it? If the HDL > > is > > available, and the driver is available, what if most of the value add are in > > closed source firmware? Should a vendor be able to take open source > > hardware, > > add closed source firmware & use open source software for the driver? > > Twisted. :) > > Unfortunately, I don't think it would be wise to have the hardware > impose restictions on the software. > > Not everyone always looks at the source code to their open source > software. What they have is the ability to look at it if they WANT > to. Having a closed-source driver or firmware for a piece of open > source hardware doesn't change anything, because you can always reuse > that open hardware in another environment where you can use a > different driver and/or firmware. > > Software should be governed by OS distro policy. If they don't want > any binary blobs, having open hardware gives them the opportunity to > replace the driver and/or firmware with their own open source version. > > With open hardware, lots of things are different. If someone uses a > piece of open hardware in a closed way, it's still good for us, > because (a) they had to pay for it, and (b) they're dependent on us. > The only time their actions are restricted is if they try to DUPLICATE > the hardware. Then the IP license comes into effect. Otherwise, the > hardware was duplicated by someone authorized to do so, and now it's a > physical good that can be bought and sold at will. > > > 4. Should the OHF define multiple levels of open? Or just one? > > If that helps us, yes. > _______________________________________________ > 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)
