myhdl-list

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

[George P. <ge...@ga...>]

Hey all,

As I get back to business on my PhoenixSID project, I've decided to
release some useful components, starting with an open-source Delta-Sigma
audio DAC IP core (A DAC on your CPLD/FPGA for 'free').

This could come in real handy in case you guys are itchin' to do some
hardware projects... 8-) If you want some help with that, let me know!

http://myhdl.jandecaluwe.com/doku.php/users:george_pantazopoulos

Feedback welcome.

Rock on,
George
http://www.gammaburst.net

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

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

George Pantazopoulos wrote:
> Hey all,
> 
> As I get back to business on my PhoenixSID project, I've decided to
> release some useful components, starting with an open-source Delta-Sigma
> audio DAC IP core (A DAC on your CPLD/FPGA for 'free').

As I told you before, great work, George.

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.
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.

There was a time when such considerations were also valid
for open-source licenses, such as the GPL. However, by now
many great companies have learned to integrate open-source
projects in their products and profit from it.

I want commercial users as much as other ones. In fact,
I'll judge success or failure of the MyHDL project by its
commercial relevance. Consequently, I wouldn't want to
do anything to deter commercial users from using MyHDL.

Now that we are considering an open-source IP library, these
issues become relevant. As a minimum, any project should use an
open-source compliant license. I'd prefer to keep it more strict,
clear and simple, and simply require the LGPL.

Jan

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

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

[George P. <ge...@ga...>]

Jan Decaluwe wrote:
> George Pantazopoulos wrote:
>   
>> Hey all,
>>
>> As I get back to business on my PhoenixSID project, I've decided to
>> release some useful components, starting with an open-source Delta-Sigma
>> audio DAC IP core (A DAC on your CPLD/FPGA for 'free').
>>     
>
> As I told you before, great work, George.
>
>   
Thanks!

> 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.
> 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.
>
>   

> There was a time when such considerations were also valid
> for open-source licenses, such as the GPL. However, by now
> many great companies have learned to integrate open-source
> projects in their products and profit from it.
>
> I want commercial users as much as other ones. In fact,
> I'll judge success or failure of the MyHDL project by its
> commercial relevance. Consequently, I wouldn't want to
> do anything to deter commercial users from using MyHDL.
>
> Now that we are considering an open-source IP library, these
> issues become relevant. As a minimum, any project should use an
> open-source compliant license. I'd prefer to keep it more strict,
> clear and simple, and simply require the LGPL.
>
> Jan
>
>   
Hi Jan, you raise some great points and I too want wide adoption.

     I didn't put a lot of thought into the license and am open to 
changing it. I don't mind opening it up for free commercial use as well. 
How would the LGPL license work in terms of hardware IP cores?

Thanks,
George

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

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

George Pantazopoulos wrote:

> 
> Hi Jan, you raise some great points and I too want wide adoption.
> 
>      I didn't put a lot of thought into the license and am open to 
> changing it. I don't mind opening it up for free commercial use as well. 
> How would the LGPL license work in terms of hardware IP cores?

As far as I'm concerned, it's the best option that I'm aware of.

First of all, the GPL family of licenses is widely used, time tested,
and, most importantly, whenever I put some serious thought in it,
its features are exactly what I personally want.

I assume the GPL-like features are familiar, so there's no need to
discuss them further here.

However, the full GPL license itself is not what I want for MyHDL or for
IP cores that I would write. When someone uses MyHDL or an IP core of
mine, I want the GPL conditions to apply only to the code that I
originally wrote, not to the user's own code. That's enough for me.
In this way, a user can keep his own code private if he wants to.
I think that otherwise, commercial users won't touch it.

With the GPL itself, my requirements cannot be fulfilled, because
the license would extend to all code that uses MyHDL or the IP
core. But with the LGPL, I get exactly what I want.

If you look on opencores.org, you'll see that they would like
everyone to use the LGPL as much as possible. So apparently
they came to the same conclusion.

Jan

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Or should that be more like an open core library with common license and
no copyright. So everything should be put under the "ownership of MyHDL"?

Maybe a mix would be good?

There is one open core library that features some basic functions.
Something that is coordinated over the mailing list, by discussing about
the functions and then people contribute to it.

The second feature would be to allow people to contribute projects
whatever they would like. Something like what George did. Those projects
would be owned by the developers and they can decide what they want to
do with them?

Maybe I think too much in terms of opencores and just copy it over to MyHDL?

Guenter

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

[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

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

[George P. <ge...@ga...>]

>
>> 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.
>
>
>   

I think the LGPL is a reasonable choice for the IP cores I've been 
releasing.

> >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.
>
>
>   
I like the distinction made between promotional cores and other cores. I 
agree that we'll eventually need a version-controlled repository, and I 
would want subversion to be the tool of choice.

I'm not quite sure where stuff like the Ascii Timing Spec that I've been 
working on will fit in just yet.

Another thing I would like to see is that contributors are free to put 
up a link so people can willingly donate money to their projects. 
Additionally, MyHDL itself could have such a button. I use cygwin 
extensively, and I've felt good about donating to their contributors. I 
think their donations link is appropriate and unobtrusive.

See:
http://cygwin.com

Regards,
George

Re: [myhdl-list] Licenses and expectations

[Martin d A. <po...@ma...>]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Jan Decaluwe wrote:
> with things like darcs, git, mercurial ... and sometimes I feel like
> those distributed systems would be more suited to things like myhdl.

I am just a quiet watcher on this mailing list, so I don't plan on 
interrupting your discussion. I simply have run into this problem 
yesterday at my company, and I just want to share a few links:

http://www.bitkeeper.com/Comparisons.Subversion.html
http://keithp.com/blog/Repository_Formats_Matter.html
http://www.jukie.net/~bart/blog/git-vs-hg

And some more:
http://kerneltrap.org/node/5557
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/tutorial.html

Git vs Subversion:
http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitSvnComparsion

Martin

Re: [myhdl-list] Licenses and expectations

[George P. <ge...@ga...>]

Martin d Anjou wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Jan Decaluwe wrote:
>   
>> with things like darcs, git, mercurial ... and sometimes I feel like
>> those distributed systems would be more suited to things like myhdl.
>>     
>
> I am just a quiet watcher on this mailing list, so I don't plan on 
> interrupting your discussion. I simply have run into this problem 
> yesterday at my company, and I just want to share a few links:
>
> http://www.bitkeeper.com/Comparisons.Subversion.html
> http://keithp.com/blog/Repository_Formats_Matter.html
> http://www.jukie.net/~bart/blog/git-vs-hg
>
> And some more:
> http://kerneltrap.org/node/5557
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/tutorial.html
>
> Git vs Subversion:
> http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitSvnComparsion
>
> Martin
>   
Thanks a lot for your links, Martin! I'll be taking a closer look, but I 
really like the sound of Git because it's used by the linux kernel 
developers. This tells me that it's well-tested by a rabid bunch of 
developers who are all over the planet.

Rock on,
George
http://www.gammaburst.net

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

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

George Pantazopoulos wrote:

> 
> I like the distinction made between promotional cores and other cores. I 
> agree that we'll eventually need a version-controlled repository, and I 
> would want subversion to be the tool of choice.

I'm using subversion locally (in particular for myhdl) and I have been
promoting it in the companies that I work with as a consultant. It
seems to be emerging as a real winner. So I agree it's a good choice.
But, there is so much interesting development going on in this field
with things like darcs, git, mercurial ... and sometimes I feel like
those distributed systems would be more suited to things like myhdl.

Anyway, I think the more important question is: should we host
a repository ourselves, or use a hosted service? (The question can
be extended to bug trackers, feature trackers, file release pages, etc.)
My personal feeling is that there is no conceptual difference between
MyHDL IP and any other open-source project, with respect to development
support tools. Therefore, we can save time and effort by using a
hosted service.

Jan

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