Re: Re: [oc] GNU LGPL license

["Tony Burch" <tony@burched.com.au>]

I agree with Graham that the Design Science License
may be a good starting point, and it appears that
it is quite consistent with the spirit of opencores
(I am no expert on such licenses, but I have read
through the DSL).

As an example, Reinoud Lamberts has released
his "MPGA" core under the Design Science License
http://ce.et.tudelft.nl/~reinoud/mpga/README.html
At the bottom of this page he notes:
"The DSL is a generalised GPL, covering more
than just software".

Best regards
Tony Burch
http://www.BurchED.com
Low cost FPGA boards, for System-On-Chip
prototyping and education

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Graham Seaman" <graham@seul.org>
To: <cores@opencores.org>
Sent: Friday, 26 April 2002 7:56
Subject: Re: Re: [oc] GNU LGPL license


> On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Damjan Lampret wrote:
> 
> > core free and not require any changes to come back to the community. I
> > checked the GNU page John suggested and GNU LGPL is the closest to want
> > I'd like from a license. Now what? Should we modify GNU LGPL to better
> > fit hardware?
> 
> If you were going to do this, might a better starting point be the design
> science license (http://www.dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt)? This has the 
> advantages that a) it is (IIRC) recognised as compatible with FSF
> licences, and listed as such on the FSF pages; b) it doesn't have all
> the software-specific content the gpl/lgpl have, c) it is already 
> occasionally used for hardware designs, and d) it is short.
> 
> I'm not clear enough about whether it would need to be changed to be more
> lgpl than gpl like; if you did need to create a 'lgpl-ish' version, you
> could offer the new version back to the design science site and maybe
> see if the FSF would also approve your version?
> 
> Graham
> 


--
To unsubscribe from cores mailing list please visit http://www.opencores.org/mailinglists.shtml