3 ms·

How does the GPL apply to hardware? Let's say I take some GPL'ed verilog code, modify it a bit, build a chip out of it and sell the chip. Am I required to pro

by krupan 11y ago

How does the GPL apply to hardware? Let's say I take some GPL'ed verilog code, modify it a bit, build a chip out of it and sell the chip. Am I required to provide the verilog "source" for my chip? I guess if the chip counts as "object code" in GPL lingo then the answer is yes. There's a lot more than just the verilog code that goes into building a chip though. How is the physical layout, for example, handled? Is that considered part of the "corresponding source" in GPL lingo?

chei0aiV 11y ago
Copyright doesn't apply to physical hardware but it probably applies to hardware designs. There are various laws protecting ICs but I'm not sure they allow for copyleft-like hacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit_layout_design_protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit_layout_desi...
jeffbush 11y ago
I found an interesting and detailed legal analysis of that. It sounds like the answer isn't black and white: http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v25/25HarvJLTech131.pdf http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v25/25HarvJLTech131...
nickpsecurity 11y ago
I was hoping someone jumped in for context. The other two commenters provide that. Now, in that context, let's just say that the ASIC ecosystem with companies sitting on hundreds of millions to billions in I.P. aren't about to (a) integrate a GPL component or (b) let their stuff be used in a GPL component if there's even the slightest chance it causes legal risk. That's all the good ones. The only exception I know (and promote) was Aeroflex Gaisler putting an ASIC-proven CPU and peripheral IP in a GPL release. That people did nothing with. (sighs) Even he's not doing GPL for new stuff IIRC. The rest continue licensing on a per-producer basis... revenue which GPL would negate. So, it's just incentives. The positive incentive is licensing, which they're doing. The negative incentives are anything risking their I.P., which GPL does. It's a double whammy against GPL'd or even free HW from existing ecosystem.

by krupan 11y ago

chei0aiV 11y ago

Copyright doesn't apply to physical hardware but it probably applies to hardware designs. There are various laws protecting ICs but I'm not sure they allow for copyleft-like hacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit_layout_design_protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit_layout_desi...

jeffbush 11y ago

I found an interesting and detailed legal analysis of that. It sounds like the answer isn't black and white: http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v25/25HarvJLTech131.pdf http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v25/25HarvJLTech131...

nickpsecurity 11y ago

I was hoping someone jumped in for context. The other two commenters provide that. Now, in that context, let's just say that the ASIC ecosystem with companies sitting on hundreds of millions to billions in I.P. aren't about to (a) integrate a GPL component or (b) let their stuff be used in a GPL component if there's even the slightest chance it causes legal risk. That's all the good ones. The only exception I know (and promote) was Aeroflex Gaisler putting an ASIC-proven CPU and peripheral IP in a GPL release. That people did nothing with. (sighs) Even he's not doing GPL for new stuff IIRC. The rest continue licensing on a per-producer basis... revenue which GPL would negate. So, it's just incentives. The positive incentive is licensing, which they're doing. The negative incentives are anything risking their I.P., which GPL does. It's a double whammy against GPL'd or even free HW from existing ecosystem.