> GPL or LGPL - both of which are unclear how they apply in the case of ASIC and FPGA designs, particularly when you consider weird corner cases like partial re

> GPL or LGPL - both of which are unclear how they apply in the case of ASIC and FPGA designs, particularly when you consider weird corner cases like partial reconfiguration (FPGA and ASIC tools allow you to sequester the open source block in its own "compilation unit" and compiling that unit separately from the main system, only connecting the wires at the last steps) If the goal is to write a "pure" license (that only grants rights, and doesn't restrict any you already have without the license) and not a contract (eg EULA) it isn't really possible for there to be much clarity here. Because then the license only applies to derivative works (and exact copies), and the boundaries of that is entirely up to the courts to decide, not the license. Even for software, most of the common knowledge about where those boundaries occur (say when linking) hasn't been tested in court. All we know for certain are the things the license explicitly allows (like using system libraries). The courts already threw us a curve ball by saying that APIs were eligible for copyright, and implementing them was a derivative work (albeit, usually one covered by fair use). I wouldn't be surprised if they threw some more.