[myhdl-list] Licenses and expectations; was Re: DSX1000 Open-source Delta-Sigma DAC IP Core (MyHDL)

[<dan...@we...>]

Jan Decaluwe wrote:
> Günter Dannoritzer wrote:
>> Jan Decaluwe wrote:
>> [...]
[...]
>>> 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.
> 

OK, I agree. I did not consider that option.

[...]
> 
> 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

OK, I see your point and I agree. I remember endless discussions on the
opencores mailing list about licenses issues. Even between using GPL vs.
LGPL. Sticking to one might be a good way to limit that.

[...]
> 
> 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.

The big difference between for example opencores and myhdl is that the
objective of opencores is to host open logic core projects. In contrast
the object of the new myhdl page should be to promote the use of myhdl
through available logic cores or other tools. Those tools or logic cores
should help lower the hesitation of logic developers to use myhdl.

>From that difference I think there should be some structuring.

One example could be:

* tools
* promotional cores
* other cores

Tools and promotional cores should be something agreed on. Otherwise
this becomes too much of a bazaar type collection. For that it has some
structure its code could come along with a distutils installer. Maybe as
a library to myhdl.

The other cores could be something everybody is doing on its own preference.


Guenter