Perhaps a modification of the Apache 2.0? http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/69 -- 1a) This link is to a PDF that compares the CERN Hardware Lic and the TAPR Hardware Lic and proposes an alternative for business concerns based on the Apache 2.0 lic.
As for the Open Graphics "entity", how about a non-profit foundation? Write up a good solid "social contract", get the Lic in order, setup the foundation and it's legal guidance's. Obviously keeping thing's transparent is the key to avoiding paranoia as much as possible. Gary On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Timothy Normand Miller <[email protected]>wrote: > Back under Traversal, we had a license that was attached to source files > and put up on the Wiki that explained that Traversal had copyright in a > dual-license manner, and that anyone had the right to strip off these > licensing terms and make it pure GPL. > > Unfortunately, this didn't work out so well, because some individuals > assumed that it was ONLY GPL and were bothered when they saw this stuff end > up in a commercial product. This is despite the fact that the licensing > terms were in every source file and on the wiki and stated this clearly. > > SO, as a formality, to avoid this problem, I think I need to apply a > special license. There should be only one license, which is that I (as its > benevolent guardian) have legal control over it, and that at any time, > another individual wanting to fork the published code can CONVERT it to > GPL. This is an explicit step of removing one license and applying another > in accordance with the original licensing terms, rather than simply > removing one of two concurrent licenses. > > This way, in the remote chance that the hardware has revenue potential, I > can license it to some company or other under arbitrary (i.e. non-GPL) > terms, and it's all above-board, because the version I'm licensing is NOT > GPL and NEVER WAS. This also affords me the opportunity to work into the > license any necessary disclaimers pertaining to avoiding potential conflict > of interest with my work at Binghamton University, etc., etc. > > Now, just to be clear, just because I have LEGAL control doesn't mean I > have complete MORAL control. Sure, I'm probably going to end up writing > most of the code, but I have gotten design advice and other documentation > from other contributors to this project, and there will be lots of other > kinds of input, like from people synthesizing some GPU configuration for > standard cell and reporting back timing and energy info. This is still > morally public property, so it's not like I can just pocket the money. It > has to be invested in open hardware and software projects, and it's also my > job to ensure that this is done wisely. > > Let the endless discussion and paranoia begin. :) > > -- > Timothy Normand Miller, PhD > Assistant Professor of Computer Science, Binghamton University > http://www.cs.binghamton.edu/~millerti/<http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~millerti> > Open Graphics Project > > _______________________________________________ > 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)
