On Jul 15, 2010, at 7:47 AM, asom...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Dave N6NZ <n...@arrl.net> wrote: >> >> On Jul 14, 2010, at 7:46 PM, Windell H. Oskay wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jul 14, 2010, at 7:36 PM, Ales Hvezda wrote: >>>> >>>> And my usual questions: >>>> >>>> http://lwn.net/Articles/396011/ >>> >>> I've had some part in this. Whether or not proprietary design files can >>> be compatible with open source hardware has been an active topic of debate, >>> even amongst the people writing that draft definition. It's a tough, >>> tough call, for all the reasons that Bunnie mentions. >>> >>> I think that the proper place to resolve this issue is in the actual >>> *licenses,* which as with OSS may vary from permissive to restrictive. I'd >>> like to see the evolution of at least one OSHW license where a requirement >>> is that the design files for the project-- and its derivative works --need >>> to be in open, documented formats. >>> >> That's the right answer -- let there be a battle of licenses. Although >> hopefully, it is a small set and we avoid the "license salad" issues that >> have sprung up in software. I, too, want to see (and would use) a license >> where all source files for all aspects of the design are in open, documented >> formats, but that isn't going to be to everyone's liking or practical in all >> cases. >> >> But also, I'd like to point out that just having an open & documented source >> language isn't really enough. What I really want in the end is a 100% open >> source tool chain, and simply having an open file format isn't sufficient. >> Example: FPGA's. Verilog source isn't going to help if the FPGA fitter tool >> proprietary. So (thinking out loud) maybe some kind of license that says >> the file format documentation *and* sources (or mirror pointers) for all the >> development tools are a required part of the distribution source. > > I too _want_ a 100% open source tool chain, but it's not going to > happen anytime soon and I don't think it's appropriate to insist upon > it in a license. If a developer wants his work to be maximally free, > he should ensure that it _can_ be built with an open-source toolchain,
Yes, good point. And that is what I would like also, that it *can* be built with an open source tool chain. Coming up with both practical license language and operationally practical design file packaging practices that accomplish that is challenging. My key point is that simply requiring publicly documented design file formats is not sufficient. There is certainly a place for a license that requires publicly documented design file formats, and nothing more. But I'd also like to see some kind of license ensures the design can be built with an open source tool chain. <snip> _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
