opencores.org - Question on project licensing?

Started by Pacbell User August 3, 2003
I would like to contribute a multi-cycle (slow, but area-compact)
(Hehe, someone else already released a pipelined integer-divider,
to the opencores.org repository.  Gence I'm marketing my divider as
'compact'!)
I am reading through the FAQ, and one part has me a bit confused...

===

The 'licensing' portion -- I understand that the 'GPL' license
is fairly restrictive in that it forces derivative works to be
distributed in documented *AND* modifiable form.

My goal is to let *anyone* use my integer-divider as they see
fit.  If they want to use it in a closed commercial project, that's
fine.  It seems like a GPL-release cannot be used in a closed
project, is that correct?

So under which license should I release my divider? LGPL, BSD, etc.?!?

...

Also, is Xilinx Webpack 5.1ISE the final version that will run
under Win98se (no flames please)?  The newer versions refuse to install.


"Pacbell User" <dont_reply@dont_reply.com> wrote in message
news:<sSgXa.472$gC7.418@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>...
> I would like to contribute a multi-cycle (slow, but area-compact) > (Hehe, someone else already released a pipelined integer-divider, > to the opencores.org repository. Gence I'm marketing my divider as'compact'!) > I am reading through the FAQ, and one part has me a bit confused...
could I have a sneak preview of your divider ? (I want violate the license, whatever you will choose later) and you are right about licensing (that is confusing) GPL is what people think 'free' but in some way its more restrictive than commercial licenses. antti
BSD licencense is popular, but the original had some problems see:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
So get a copy of the 'new' version or state it like suggested 'revised BSD
license'.
Martin

--
--------------------------------------------------------
JOP - a Java Processor core for FPGAs now
on Cyclone: http://www.jopdesign.com/cyclone/

"Pacbell User" <dont_reply@dont_reply.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:sSgXa.472$gC7.418@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> I would like to contribute a multi-cycle (slow, but area-compact) > (Hehe, someone else already released a pipelined integer-divider, > to the opencores.org repository. Gence I'm marketing my divider as > 'compact'!) > I am reading through the FAQ, and one part has me a bit confused... > > === > > The 'licensing' portion -- I understand that the 'GPL' license > is fairly restrictive in that it forces derivative works to be > distributed in documented *AND* modifiable form. > > My goal is to let *anyone* use my integer-divider as they see > fit. If they want to use it in a closed commercial project, that's > fine. It seems like a GPL-release cannot be used in a closed > project, is that correct? > > So under which license should I release my divider? LGPL, BSD, etc.?!? > > ... > > Also, is Xilinx Webpack 5.1ISE the final version that will run > under Win98se (no flames please)? The newer versions refuse to install. > >
Martin,

Copyright? Copyleft? Hey, if I do an I-Q converter, can I use
CopyOrthogonal?

Rob (at 90 degrees to reality)


Martin Schoeberl wrote:
> > BSD licencense is popular, but the original had some problems see: > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html > So get a copy of the 'new' version or state it like suggested 'revised BSD > license'. > Martin > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------- > JOP - a Java Processor core for FPGAs now > on Cyclone: http://www.jopdesign.com/cyclone/ > > "Pacbell User" <dont_reply@dont_reply.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > news:sSgXa.472$gC7.418@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com... > > I would like to contribute a multi-cycle (slow, but area-compact) > > (Hehe, someone else already released a pipelined integer-divider, > > to the opencores.org repository. Gence I'm marketing my divider as > > 'compact'!) > > I am reading through the FAQ, and one part has me a bit confused... > > > > === > > > > The 'licensing' portion -- I understand that the 'GPL' license > > is fairly restrictive in that it forces derivative works to be > > distributed in documented *AND* modifiable form. > > > > My goal is to let *anyone* use my integer-divider as they see > > fit. If they want to use it in a closed commercial project, that's > > fine. It seems like a GPL-release cannot be used in a closed > > project, is that correct? > > > > So under which license should I release my divider? LGPL, BSD, etc.?!? > > > > ... > > > > Also, is Xilinx Webpack 5.1ISE the final version that will run > > under Win98se (no flames please)? The newer versions refuse to install. > > > >
Rob,


> Copyright? Copyleft? Hey, if I do an I-Q converter, can I use > CopyOrthogonal?
I didn't invent these words and I find them also strange ;-) Martin
> > Rob (at 90 degrees to reality) > > > Martin Schoeberl wrote: > > > > BSD licencense is popular, but the original had some problems see: > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html > > So get a copy of the 'new' version or state it like suggested 'revised
BSD
> > license'. > > Martin > > > > -- > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > JOP - a Java Processor core for FPGAs now > > on Cyclone: http://www.jopdesign.com/cyclone/ > > > > "Pacbell User" <dont_reply@dont_reply.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > > news:sSgXa.472$gC7.418@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com... > > > I would like to contribute a multi-cycle (slow, but area-compact) > > > (Hehe, someone else already released a pipelined integer-divider, > > > to the opencores.org repository. Gence I'm marketing my divider as > > > 'compact'!) > > > I am reading through the FAQ, and one part has me a bit confused... > > > > > > === > > > > > > The 'licensing' portion -- I understand that the 'GPL' license > > > is fairly restrictive in that it forces derivative works to be > > > distributed in documented *AND* modifiable form. > > > > > > My goal is to let *anyone* use my integer-divider as they see > > > fit. If they want to use it in a closed commercial project, that's > > > fine. It seems like a GPL-release cannot be used in a closed > > > project, is that correct? > > > > > > So under which license should I release my divider? LGPL, BSD, etc.?!? > > > > > > ... > > > > > > Also, is Xilinx Webpack 5.1ISE the final version that will run > > > under Win98se (no flames please)? The newer versions refuse to
install.
> > > > > >
"Pacbell User" <dont_reply@dont_reply.com> wrote in message
news:<sSgXa.472$gC7.418@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>...
> I would like to contribute a multi-cycle (slow, but area-compact) > (Hehe, someone else already released a pipelined integer-divider, > to the opencores.org repository. Gence I'm marketing my divider as > 'compact'!) > I am reading through the FAQ, and one part has me a bit confused... > > === > > The 'licensing' portion -- I understand that the 'GPL' license > is fairly restrictive in that it forces derivative works to be > distributed in documented *AND* modifiable form. > > My goal is to let *anyone* use my integer-divider as they see > fit. If they want to use it in a closed commercial project, that's > fine. It seems like a GPL-release cannot be used in a closed > project, is that correct? > > So under which license should I release my divider? LGPL, BSD, etc.?!?
Look at some other IP cores (perhaps some of mine) at OpenCores. I faced the same problem that you are facing, I wanted to protect myself but not limit the usage of any of my IP cores. So I created my own "license". It's on top of each of my files ... Best Regards, rudi -------------------------------------------------------- www.asics.ws --- Solutions for your ASIC/FPGA needs --- ----------------- FPGAs * Full Custom ICs * IP Cores --- FREE IP Cores --> http://www.asics.ws/ <-- FREE IP Cores
Pacbell User wrote:

> The 'licensing' portion -- I understand that the 'GPL' license > is fairly restrictive in that it forces derivative works to be > distributed in documented *AND* modifiable form.
LGPL will not really help you here and I am not really sure how you would apply it to a hardware design in any case. Can you LGPL license hardware designs and treat the situation is if you were linking against a library thus being ok with binary distribution? Does that really work? I personally prefer the GPL over most other licenses however in this case either having no license or a BSD style one will probably suffice. Jon.