Hi On Monday 02 December 2002 21:04, Walter Landry wrote: > Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi
> > Yes; I'm currently looking at that and the OpenIPCore > > license. > > > > http://www.opencores.org/OIPC/OHGPL.shtml. > > > > Are these both compliant licenses? > > The OpenIPCore license is a more of a copyleft, so you'll > probably be happier with it. Looking through the license, it > looks mostly ok. There are some points about it that strike me. Maybe I'm completely wrong about it... 1. This license is only a draft. Is it a good idea to use it already? Future versions could be incompatible with it. 2. Is this license GPL compatible? In the future, digital devices will propably use the GPLed F-CPU, so this might be a big problem, then. 3. AFAIK, the copyleft in the GPL is not strong enough to prevent that a chip that has been built from a GPLed design is bought by a non-licensee, and resold, soldered into a non-free circuit. This is like creating a non-free artwork out of Debian CDs, but far more severe. I am not sure if there is a possible strategy about this at all, and what the OHGPL is doing about this. 4. I can't find the phrase that allows distribution of a modified version. 5. Paragraph 3, which forbids selling but allows a fee OTOH, seems to be against the wording of DFSG 1. Is there a license that has been classified DFSG-free which uses a similar wording? cu, Thomas }:o{#
