On 3 January 2013 21:18, Timothy Normand Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you for your comments. You appear to have some experience with this.
>> 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. ;) > > Yeah, this is a dilemma I am facing. Proposal: come up with set of goals and desires rather than legal text. Send these goals over to license-discuss. I am happy to Shepard this process. Let them ensure that whatever goals are desired still is "open source". Once we have that then it requires taking the time (and possibly money) to find a lawyer willing to write the license. This is the only way you are going to get a useful license that may stand up in court. In this case it seems almost like GPLv2 would meet your needs exactly. I do have some concerns that the GPL is meant for code, not hardware, but since the hardware actually *is* code (verilog or whatever) this isn't a real concern. > >> Second Meta Comment: >> >> Could we try for something LGPL like instead of GPL. > I specifically DO NOT want this. ack. > For instance, it may be more cost-effective to use a pre-built PCIe > controller or GDDR5 memory controller, and we should exempt this from the > GPL requirement. Carefully. GPL applies to code you license only. If you could find existing non-GPL software whose license lets you use it, this is okay. For example GPLed code on Windows. ;) > Good idea. Maybe I can delegate that to someone. :) I'm happy to do this, provided the goals are clearly laid out by you (or others on this list). > Meanwhile, I need > something I can slap on code I want to post to the list next week Suggestion: start with GPLv2 because it sounds like what you want already. Let the discussion play out and then possibly change it later. >> This work does *not* include derived works. Those are different works >> derived from this one. > > Well, it does in a viral way, but this is an IP distinction that I'm sure a > lawyer would take issue with. Yes, this is what I meant. >> >> This clause is not required. Instead "dual license" the code under >> the (L)GPLv2. This makes this license simpler. > I tried dual-licensing and got into some trouble over it. You mentioned confusion. I'd be curious what kind of confusion: Mozilla Firefox does pretty well with tri-licensing. > They are not registered, but I supposed I should register them. I'm not sure of that value of a registered trademark above and beyond normal usage. Just a thought. >> Note that inclusion of this language may not qualify this license as >> open source per the OSI. As I mentioned > IIRC, the FSF made a statement that they're perfectly fine with companies > using trademark protection for a brand identity. See http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero for the gist and search on the licence-review list for "CC0" for the detailed discusion. Including an explicit patent exemption is likely to make the license *not* open source. I would however consider an apache like patent retaliation clause ("if you sue us over patent issues, you lose your rights to use the software"). > Ok. So at the very least, I need two documents, one for licensing terms, > the other for project policy. Yes. You may also need a third: the actual "copyright assignment" form. Personally, I'd look into a foundation for this effort or ask the SPI if they are willing to act as the host for the assignment. I am willing to approach them provided there is consensus on this list. Note that requiring copyright assignment is very useful for the goals of the project (eventually licensing out the work to commercial users) but it does tend to reduce contribution. > I also agree that I should generify the name > of the copyright holder, because I don't mind if someone else copies my > license. Cool. > Somehow, I'm trying to get across that if you fork the project, it has to be > under GPL. Of course, you can commit anything you want to the GPL version. The GPL itself does this. > The next question is what about if you BOTH fork the project AND commit > things to the original. You might have to demonstrate proper > compartmentalization due to the potential conflict of interest; you need to > be sure that what you commit to the Original is your own work and not > something you got from someone else committing to the GPL'd fork. The "easy" way to do this is to is dual licensing the original, but you mentioned you didn't want to do this. The "hard" way is to include a "switch me out for the GPL at your behest" and then require in the policy document that any contributions use the "OpenGraphics Hardware License" and *not* the GPL (which could then be switched out later by the forks). Note that commercial users can *still* use the GPL version with this method. A third option, is to just straight up use the GPL and offer an additional commercial license to those that want it. I believe MySQL uses this model. >> Also, is it fully assigned or joint copyright? > Whatever gives the original licensor all of the rights specified here. Ack. > Yeah, this is a hold-over from old stuff. It's neither license nor policy. > It's coding standard. :) :) >> > Frequently Asked Questions >> >> People asked questions already? :) > I want it to be free to you and to people at other universities. I want the > likes of Apple and Samsung to have to pay for use of it. >> > 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. > Then this should be moved into the license. http://opensource.org/osd = quote = 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. ====== That said, what you *can* do is offer the license on terms that the commercial users wouldn't want to use (GPL) and offer a second (paid) license that permits binary only redistribution. >> Perhaps the OSI / SPI / SFLC may be willing to help. In particular >> the SPI offers legal services to organizations. > > We'll have to look into that. As above, I'm willing to approach them, provided there is consensus from you and this list in general. > So, what I gather from Wikipedia is that a "derivative work" is a work that > contains substantial new creative content that it can be considers a new > work, but which is nevertheless based substantially on preexisting works. Yes. For instance, if I were to publish a book called "Harry Potter - the Eight Story" which makes use of characters and plots from previous books. > What I'm trying to make clear here is that although the simulator and > synthesizable GPU will mirror each other's architectures, they are not > derived from each other in any way that should require that one's licensing > terms would apply to the other. This should be made clear on the website, and from the LICENSE or COPYIND files in the respective repositories: not in the license. -- 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)
