practical experience with GPL IP core in commercial product

On 11/13/2014 12:00 AM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (snip, someone wrote)
>
>>> As far as the OP is concerned, my only point was that the definition of
>>> "work" is a legal one, and that - in general - attempts to circumvent
>>> the GPL typically imply that the GPL does apply to the whole you're
>>> trying to split up.  This is hard enough to work through for software,
>>> adding a hardware element to it makes it much harder.
>
>> Ok, this is where we started I believe.  You have stated that it is
>> "hard" to apply GPL to hardware.  But I don't follow your reasoning in
>> that regard.  I don't see how it is any different from software.  The
>> fact that it costs more to replicate hardware than it does to replicate
>> software doesn't seem relevant to me.
>
> Well, one reason relates to what copyright protects. It protects
> the expression of the idea. In both cases, one can make a new expression
> and avoid the copyright.  In the case of a large software project, that
> isn't likely. It would take a very long time to generate a different
> expression of linux to get around its copyright.
>
> But in the case of hardware, reasonably often that isn't true.
> Consider a PC board as an example hardware. I can redo the layout,
> with exactly the same components wired up the same way, but with
> completely different placement. IANAL, but I suspect that would get
> around any copyright.  Seems to me that if you take the netlist and
> run it through a different PC board router, that would probably
> be enough.

You have to start with a schematic which is copyrighted.  So this would 
need to be redone.  The PCB layout would need to be redone from scratch. 
  If you lift any portion of the PCB layout verbatim that is the same as 
plagiarizing a line or paragraph from a book.

Yes, unless a design feature is patented, you can reuse the design 
concept.  But that is not unique to hardware.  I can rewrite software 
and I am no longer in violation of copyright.

I don't see a significant difference.


> That makes me wonder how hard it would be to write a program that
> would generate a new expression of a software idea. Change it in
> enough ways to avoid copyright, but such that the function was
> guaranteed (as well as software can) to be the same. That is,
> no human in the loop to make human errors.

I don't know how copyright protects software.  I mean I don't know just 
what constitutes violations and what does not.  That is an issue for the 
courts to decide.


> Not quite the same, but the usual way to get around drug patents
> is to modify the molecule in some way. Add a methyl group onto
> one ond, or hydroxyl on the other. Away from the active site, but
> that is usually enough to get around a patent.

With drugs changing one portion of the molecule *will* change the way it 
works 999 times out of 1000.  That is why the various drugs for a single 
purpose all are qualified separately and have different side effects, etc.


>> I don't see any reason why "applying a copyright license to physical
>> hardware is both legally and philosophically difficult."  It is done all
>> the time.  All of my products are copyrighted hardware.  A recipient of
>> GPLed hardware has the same rights as a recipient of a GPLed binary with
>> the same level of effort required to enforce the GPL on those products.
>
> Have you tried suing anyone for illegally copying it?

That is not an unusual occurrence.  Here is even an example of *real* 
hardware being copied.  Interesting that they are being sued for 
trademark infringement.  I'm surprised that they can trademark a chair. 
  Maybe that is over the name, "Navy" chair vs. "Naval" chair.

http://www.woodworkingnetwork.com/wood-market-trends/woodworking-industry-news/production-woodworking-news/Restoration-Hardware-Sued-for-Chair-Design-Copies-174032731.html#sthash.2GAPnw9Y.dpbs

-- 

Rick