Re: [myhdl-list] DSX1000 Open-source Delta-Sigma DAC IP Core (MyHDL)

[Jan D. <ja...@ja...>]

Günter Dannoritzer wrote:
> Jan Decaluwe wrote:
> [...]
> 
>>However, I had a closer look and I have a serious problem
>>with the license. "Free for non-commercial use" suggests
>>that it is not free for commercial use.
>>
>>To start with, this wouldn't qualify as an "open source"
>>license, so it shouldn't be advertized as such.
>>
>>Secondly, I don't believe it's enforceable in practice. For
>>malicious users it won't therefore make a difference.
> 
> 
> I think it is just the fact that counts and some might at least feel bad
> for that they use it.
> 
> 
>>But what's worse, bona fide companies will simply avoid
>>looking at the info. They don't want to be exposed to
>>things that are not legally crystal-clear. And this
>>bad effect may extend to the whole project.
> 
> 
> I am not sure. I think if there is a really great project available, a
> company will take the time to talk about the issues.

Of course, and I'd love to see such "star IP" developed in MyHDL. But
there's no need to publish source code for that. Just publish a datasheet
and the conditions.

> I understand George's idea about handling out a different license if
> someone wants to use it for a commercial project. At the end he still
> can say, just use it.

I understand it too. I just believe it's a bad idea for projects for
which the source code is published. Otherwise, no problem.

> In turn forcing everybody to have to use the GPL license might also
> deter people from contributing to the project.

I didn't want to say that. What I want to say is that *if* you decide
to publish source code *then* please use an open source license.
It's just too confusing otherwise. Look at the present case: the Subject
mentions "open source", but the license really isn't. Companies
hate that kind of ambiguity, and I do too. Some of the most interesting
organizations have just learned to work with open-source solutions,
and we should be very careful here.

I want to make it very clear that I think that nobody should
feel any pressure to publish his source code.
I would encourage a data sheet section on myhdl.org where people
advertise their work under any conditions they want.

My proposal to "standardize" on the LGPL is something else - just
a practical matter. On sourceforge, you can use any OSI license you
want, but sometimes it seems the innovation is in inventing new license
schemes instead of in real work. Google Code thinks so too:

     http://code.google.com/hosting/faq.html#limitedlicenses

as does opencores.org:

    http://www.opencores.org/projects.cgi/web/opencores/mission

> Maybe there is also a different understanding what this new change to
> the web page should bring. My original understanding was that people can
> start projects, just similar to source forge or opencores. The projects
> and the copyright are owned by the respective developers.

Wait a moment here. Under his current conditions, George simply
wouldn't have been able to start a project on either sourceforge,
Google Code or opencores.org, as it's not an open source license.

On myhdl.org, I would be in favor of an open-source IP library
AND a datasheet section for non-open source solutions. So a
contributor to myhdl.org would have more options, not less.

Now, the general point you raise on expectations is very relevant
and I have many doubts myself. We should have an open discussion
about this before continuing.

Jan

-- 
Jan Decaluwe - Resources bvba - http://www.jandecaluwe.com
Losbergenlaan 16, B-3010 Leuven, Belgium
     From Python to silicon:
     http://myhdl.jandecaluwe.com