I cut some of your post, because I don't have any comments on that stuff. (Some tacit agreement, etc.)
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Troy Benjegerdes <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > That would rock! As long as I have copyright ownership, I'll bend whatever licensing terms necessary to make this happen. Since your chips will comply with the SPIRIT of free designs, any such bending will come with the _recommendation_ that you donate some small portion of your revenue to this project. > > > 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? > This is a purely "free" design? In that case, all the power to you. Mind you, I won't be the only one suggesting that you share the love. :) > > > > > 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. > > Fair enough. Dual-licensing IS a lot simpler. > > > > > 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. > No reason the regression tests should have the commercial license applied. The simulator, compiler tools, regression tests (including Verilog test harnesses).... all GPL. If someone is paying a royalty to license the core GPU, what is the point in complicating things by making the test code part of the contract? > > > 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. > > That sounds good to me. What does AGPL add to/remove from the GPL? -- 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)
