On 3 January 2013 16:45, Timothy Normand Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here's a proposed draft of my hardware licensing terms. Read everything
> carefully before complaining.
Meta comment:
Licensing is hard and depends on subtle choice of wording. "Crayon
licenses" not drafted by a lawyer almost certain mean something
different than one would expect. Think about a Lawyer trying to write
C code. ;)
Second Meta Comment:
Could we try for something LGPL like instead of GPL. This allows this
code to be mixed with freely licensed hardware as well without losing
the motivation for the restrictive license.
Third Meta Comment:
Try contacting the OSI via the license-discuss list: they may have an
interest in this discussion.
> OpenShader Open Hardware License (OSOHL)
>
> (0) This "Work" is defined to be this document or source code, parts of
> this document or source code, or derivative works of this document or
> source code. Use of the Work, in whole or in part, must comply with
> the licensing terms
This work does *not* include derived works. Those are different works
derived from this one.
> below.
So term 0 need not be complied with ;) ?
>
> (1) This Work is licensed as a proprietary ("Original") copyrighted work,
> all rights belonging to Timothy Normand Miller. Timothy Normand Miller may
> use this Work under those terms and has the right to publish, license, and
> sell this Work and derivative works as he sees fit.
This is assumed. I would use the generic term "licensor" instead of your name.
> To remove these rights,
> you must remove this clause. Under the Original licensing terms, third
> parties may download, view, and redistribute this Work. Third parties are
> NOT permitted to sell this Work or relicense it under any terms other than
> those expressed in clauses (1) and (2).
This clause likely does not work as intended. See how the LGPL / GPL word this.
> (2) At your discretion, you have the right to REMOVE the Original copyright
> in clause (1) and APPLY the GNU General Public License (GPL) as published by
> the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your
> option) any later version. By performing this action, you are making an
> explicit fork. This is the only circumstance where modification of this
> license by a third party is permitted. Contributions to such a fork may
> not be contributed back to Original version.
This clause is not required. Instead "dual license" the code under
the (L)GPLv2. This makes this license simpler.
> (3) Use of this Work without clause (1) forfeits the right to use any
> trademarks owned by Timothy Normand Miller, Traversal Technology, the Open
> Graphics Project, or related organizations. "OpenShader" is a trademark of
> Timothy Normand Miller.
No forfeiture require. Is OpenGraphics or OpenShader registered.
"No trademark or patent rights held by ______ are waived, abandoned,
surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document." is the
language to use. (See
https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode).
Note that inclusion of this language may not qualify this license as
open source per the OSI.
> (4) Patches, modifications, changes, and extensions (collectively,
> "Modifications") to this Work that are submitted to the Open Graphics
> Project, the Open Graphics Mailing List, directly to Timothy Normand Miller,
> or to an agent thereof must be SIGNED by the author of said Modification
> (including the words "signed off by" and the author's name), granting
> Timothy Normand Miller copyright privileges under clause (1).
> Unsigned Modifications will be ignored. Your inclusion of
> the signature implies that you have read and agreed with this license
> and have verified that you are in compliance with applicable law.
This is called copyright assignment and should not be part of the
license. Rather it should be a policy of the project.
> (5) Modifications committed directly to an officially recognized source
> code repository are signed implicitly. Those who have write access to
> such a repository and who commit Modifications to that repository grant
> rights to Timothy Normand Miller under clause (1), by virtue of having
> write access and choosing to submit Modifications.
Ditto. This may require a legal document as well.
> (6) It is the responsibility of the submitter of a Modification to ensure
> that they have the right to submit the Modification and that they have
> all the necessary permissions (including without limitation, patents
> and copyrights) from any other contributors or third parties.
Once again, policy, not license.
> (7) An implementation of this Work that is considered analogous to a
> "binary distribution" is defined as any form that is not easily
> readable by humans ("non-preferred"), which includes, but is not
> limited to: Fixed-function IC (e.g. ASIC), fixed-function IC masks
> or other fabrication intermediate step, variable-function IC (e.g.
> FPGA), FPGA bitfile, compiled or translated simulation model.
This needs to be cleaned up by a lawyer.
>
> (8) The submitter of a Modification assigns copyright of the Modification
> to Timothy Normand Miller. Depending on your local laws, you may be able
> to assign joint copyright to Timothy Normand Miller and yourself.
> Alternatively, you may need to assign copyright exclusively to
> Timothy Normand Miller. Assigning joint copyright to Timothy Normand Miller
> yourself is preferable because it will allow you to make unrestricted use of
> your work in the future.
Policy, not license. What if I *fork* the project, and commit my own
changes. This is what the license is intended to cover.
Also, is it fully assigned or joint copyright?
> (9) The submitter of a Modification forfeits the right to any patents
> covered by This Work and pledges to not enforce any patents covered by
> This Work.
See the Apache license for appropriate text here.
> (10) At your discretion, you are encouraged to add comments to the
> "Contributions" section of this Work, indicating the nature of your
> Modification.
This needs to be cleaned up - or rather removed.
> Frequently Asked Questions
People asked questions already?
> A: Yes, if you apply clause (2), removing the Original license. Then,
> you may sell the Work under the terms of the GPL.
Again, any chance of LGPL instead of GPL? This is more free without
loss of function.
...
> A: If you are a user under a royalty contract, permitted modifications will
> be governed by the contract, and you are NOT REQUIRED to publish those
> modifications.
this is a difference license / contact and may depend on *those* terms
> share a Modified version of the Work within a COMMERCIAL institution
> (e.g. a chip manufacturer), then this IS considered to be redistribution.
This isn't how the license reads.
>
> *** Why does the original licensor (Timothy Normand Miller) insist on full
> legal rights to covered Works?
>
> A: Frankly, I don't trust any other organization to manage this properly.
> I am the custodian of this Work and have the moral responsibility to ensure
> that the contributing community is treated fairly. The only way for me to
> ensure this is to ensure that I have full legal control over covered Works.
> I'm sure that many paranoids will be watching me carefully, looking for any
> reason to complain. Do bear in mind that this project is very important to
> me, and I would not do anything to abuse the FOSS community that places
> their trust in me.
Perhaps the OSI / SPI / SFLC may be willing to help. In particular
the SPI offers legal services to organizations.
> *** Why do you require the Original license be explicitly swapped with the
> GPL,
> rather than employing a dual license?
> If someone contributes to a
> GPL version, then it's not called OpenShader, and it's off limits to me. If
> someone contributes to the Original version, they know that the GPL does not
> apply (but can if someone forks according to clause (2)).
There are practical differences: it mainly makes the license more
complex without much reason.
> A: The license will NOT be applied to Works that are purely software.
> This includes software drivers and the OpenShader GPU simulator. For those,
> we will always use FOSS licenses. The simulator will be licensed under
> pure GPL, and drivers will use the X11/MIT license.
Yay! Free drivers!
This isn't clear from the license, but it shouldn't be. This is
policy, not license. :)
> *** Will the hardware design ever be considered to be a derivative work of
> the simulator?
Derivative work is a legal term of art. The answer doesn't cover it.
--
Eitan Adler
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
