3 ms·

It is a project for open HDL code, not PDK. There is still no commercially usable free-software-like PDK

by baybal2 5y ago

jabl 5y ago
Isn't there the Skywater PDK?
- baybal2 5y ago
  Skywater PDK is "open source," but not necessarily "free software," it's released under Apache license
  - marcodiego 5y ago
    According to: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html "Apache License, Version 2.0 (#apache2) This is a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GNU GPL."
  - kmeisthax 5y ago
    "Open Source" and "Free Software" are almost legally identical - the only difference being that the OSI's definition of "open" was based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines which are very slightly less restrictive[0] than the Free Software Definition the FSF uses. If a license passes FSD it will pass DFSG/OSI; and almost always a license that passes DFSG/OSI will pass FSD. The primary difference between "Open Source" and "Free Software" is political. The FSF was explicitly a political organization to promote Stallman's idea of software freedom[1] while the OSI was created specifically to make an "apolitical" business case for it. This means a lot for advocacy and ideology but not so much for the actual rules of what you can copy and when. Also, Apache license is both OSI and FSF approved. The main problem is that you cannot combine GPLv2 and Apache software. This is only a problem if you don't want to take GPLv3's TiVo clause and/or blocked v3 upgrades. [0] If I remember correctly, there's one license that requires modifications be distributed in patch form, which satisfies DFSG/OSI but not FSD. [1] To the point of writing a documentation license, GFDL, that prohibits you from removing Stallman's rants on free software, which ironically makes it non-Free.
    - kragen 5y ago
      I thought it was the Artistic License which required modifications to be distributed in patch form? The FSF does seem to have considered the original Artistic License to be non-free. I think there was some disagreement about some version of the Apache License too, but I think it was about whether it was GPL-compatible, not about whether it was free.

It is a project for open HDL code, not PDK. There is still no commercially usable free-software-like PDK

jabl 5y ago

Isn't there the Skywater PDK?

baybal2 5y ago
Skywater PDK is "open source," but not necessarily "free software," it's released under Apache license
- marcodiego 5y ago
  According to: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html "Apache License, Version 2.0 (#apache2) This is a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GNU GPL."
- kmeisthax 5y ago
  "Open Source" and "Free Software" are almost legally identical - the only difference being that the OSI's definition of "open" was based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines which are very slightly less restrictive[0] than the Free Software Definition the FSF uses. If a license passes FSD it will pass DFSG/OSI; and almost always a license that passes DFSG/OSI will pass FSD. The primary difference between "Open Source" and "Free Software" is political. The FSF was explicitly a political organization to promote Stallman's idea of software freedom[1] while the OSI was created specifically to make an "apolitical" business case for it. This means a lot for advocacy and ideology but not so much for the actual rules of what you can copy and when. Also, Apache license is both OSI and FSF approved. The main problem is that you cannot combine GPLv2 and Apache software. This is only a problem if you don't want to take GPLv3's TiVo clause and/or blocked v3 upgrades. [0] If I remember correctly, there's one license that requires modifications be distributed in patch form, which satisfies DFSG/OSI but not FSD. [1] To the point of writing a documentation license, GFDL, that prohibits you from removing Stallman's rants on free software, which ironically makes it non-Free.
  - kragen 5y ago
    I thought it was the Artistic License which required modifications to be distributed in patch form? The FSF does seem to have considered the original Artistic License to be non-free. I think there was some disagreement about some version of the Apache License too, but I think it was about whether it was GPL-compatible, not about whether it was free.