Re: [oc] A word on free licenses...

[Joe Zott <jaz@itvc.com>]

At 11:56 AM 2/29/00 -0700, you wrote:
>We would not contribute to anything, unless it's strict GNU GPL. Reasons

While I generally agree that we should be using a GNU GPL, my concern is
that any license agreement used for open IP hardware provide for use of the
cores in ASICs. In order to do so we need to permit:

* Necessary changes to deal with proprietary tools, cell libraries, etc.
Some of these changes may be confidential.
* Ability to integrated cores with proprietary cores.
* Ability to modify core as necessary to integrate with proprietary cores.
Even the interface to some cores is confidential.
* Ability to modify design to meet the specific requirements of a project.
I believe that it is reasonable to require that these changes to be made
publically available even if they would represent a development branch that
active open source developers would not be interested in.

The open IP hardware community should expect and require:
* that improvements to the general good be shared with everyone
* that users contribute design changes to increase the usability and
applicability of the core
* that documentation, supporting tools, and verification results be freely
shared

I am not a lawyer (but forgive me for doing what people normally do after
saying that and make legal points)

1. The unmodified GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE really only applies to software.

2. Translating the GPL from software to hardware I believe would require
the ASIC developer to release the masks for any design incorporating a GPL
core. That means that they couldn't use proprietary cores or cells in their
design. (Does anyone have an open-IP 0.35um cell library in the fab of my
choice that I can use with my copy of Synopsys Design Compiler?) For our
custom hardware design projects fabs require us to sign non-disclosure
agreements. I don't know that a completely open IP cell library is even
possible. Strict compliance with GPL seems to imply that you can't use the
IP for ASICs.

3. The GNU Library General Public License seems like a better model as it
provides for combining proprietary and open stuff. It also was written for
software and not hardware though.

4. It is not clear to me the provisions of this license (ref. para. 5 & 6)
would be interepreted for a hardware development.

5. Some provisions in the LGPL do appear to present problems to the ASIC
developer, e.g., "For an executable, the required form of the "work that
uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for
reproducing the executable from it." Does that mean that I need to provide
a copy of Synopsys Design Compiler ($200K+ to anyone who asks me to buy a
copy for them)?

Regards,

Joe

VP Engineering, The iTv Corporation
jaz@itvc.com