[oc] RE: [usb] RE: usb

["Stackelhouse, Scott (FL51)" <scott.stackelhouse@honeywell.com>]

I think the GPL is suitable for certain source codes like Verilog, VHDL, C &
C++ as far as simulation goes.

Perhaps we could add a section or two to the GPL (and call it HGPL)
necessitating that a person or entity that synthesizes a core from our
source code, or a derivative of that code, that the source code be made
readily available to anyone who uses that physical core.

As for fab specifications...  we don't have our own fab.  we would have to
use something like Mosis if we were to use a fab, so fab specs aren't going
to be a big secret (AFAIK).  I was under the impression that most of this
stuff was to be synthesized on an FPGA (virtex?).

Is it a concern if somebody synthesizes a core from the HGPL'd code with
secret fab specs that allow higher MHz?  This seems to me to be analogous to
writing one's own super special highly optimized compiler to compile GPL'd
code that will run faster than the rest.  If one were to write this compiler
on their own, they would be under no obligation to share that compiler code.
If they distributed their highly optimized binary, they would only be
obligated to make available the source to that binary.

The EFF might be interested and able to help with the modification to the
GPL.


Does this make sense?

--Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Zott [mailto:jaz@itvc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 12:43 AM
To: usb@opencores.org
Subject: RE: [usb] RE: usb


>I glanced at the Open Host Controller Interface, but the legal stuff at the
beginning looked like it might not be compatible with GPL.  Has anyone else
looked at this?

I have. Sadly GPL doesn't meet the license needs for hardware development.
It doesn't refer to hardware, it doesn't provide for protecting related
intellectual property (e.g., fab specifications) that is necessary for
hardware development, and there isn't a clear legal entity to represent the
open source hardware developer.

All we can hope for is that an intellectual property attorney would be
willing to contribute to development of a useful license agreement and the
creation of a legal defense fund/organization. Until then I recommend that
all the core development groups keep track of their contributors as they
will need to release their individual ownership when such a license
agreement is created.

Joe