> Note that there is a small issue with some chips where a standard component > is hard to open source with the rest of the design, and we need to exempt > this. 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.
If you are at the point where you have everything but are missing an open GDDR5 & PCIe controller, please call me and I will mortgage the q3u.be and brick patents (and anything else I can) and fund development of open versions. The other way to look at this is just charge a commercial license fee if the PCIe core vendor is concerned. I don't see how you need any exemption here. Just because I build a Gaisler LEON-Sparc and instantiate it on a Xilinx or Altera doesn't require the FPGA vendor tools to be open source. (We all currently run GPL code on non-GPL silicon mask cpus, how is using a PCIe core different?) > Good idea. Maybe I can delegate that to someone. :) Meanwhile, I need > something I can slap on code I want to post to the list next week I'm going to suggest creating a blank project with only the license file, and a code review tool. (I'd suggest Bitbucket or Github), and maybe fork it to start dumping code into. > > 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. I think I understand why you're trying to do this, but the cure might be worse than the disease. You might have a way to make it work, but it needs legal review first. > > > > > (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. > > > > They are not registered, but I supposed I should register them. Register them now. I'd also like to have a little bit of discussion on whether filing for provisional patents that are derivative works of http://q3u.be/patent/q3ube/ would either usefull, or conflicting. > > > > > > "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). > > > > Got it. > > > > > > Note that inclusion of this language may not qualify this license as > > open source per the OSI. > > > > IIRC, the FSF made a statement that they're perfectly fine with companies > using trademark protection for a brand identity. So they defend the right > of CentOS to maintain a more accessible fork of RHEL, and they also think > that Red Hat is within their rights to say that CentOS cannot use the > trademark "Red Hat" without permission. Debian has 'iceweasel' instead of firefox. I'm less concerned about the OSI than compliance with the Debian social contract and free software guidelines. Brand protection should be fine. > 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 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. I expect I may be in this position. I plan on combining the openshader with one, or all, of the following: * Milkmist SOC * Gaisler LEON-sparc (LGPL) * YASEP (AGPLv3) * Infiniband-fpga GPLv2, probably moving to AGPLv3 * q3ube AGPLv3 software & patent hybrid > 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. How about if I ship 30 million game consoles but include the silicon masks and layout tools in the default Debian install that ships on the console? > > > 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. > > > > That's true. I just want to avoid what happened before. Some of what happened before is unavoidable. if^h^hWhen we are successful, some will be irritable about something. What happened before will happen again in a different way. Focus on the things you want to see happen, rather than on what you'd rather avoid. > > > 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. > > > > 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. > 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. I think you need to be explicit on what's covered, and this needs legal review. There's also regression tests, which should be able to test both the simulator, and the GPU, without being derivative works. > Meanwhile, I'm thinking it'll be safe for me to just say that I own the > copyright and that anyone wishing to contribute will have to explicitly > make arrangements with me first. Same for getting a GPL version -- we can > apply the GPL explicitly to snapshots, including a comment that explains > that the GPL version is not the original. Something like that. I like the GPL snapshot approach. I'd also like to maintain an AGPLv3 re-licensed forkmirror that includes the full revision history, which will put some nice tight bounds around if anything gpl-only ever actually gets into downstream forks. _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
