4 ms·
This was an incredibly well written article. I didn't realize who had written it until it referenced the GPLv3. The arguments are convincing enough that I'm goi
by TD-Linux 12y ago
This was an incredibly well written article. I didn't realize who had written it until it referenced the GPLv3. The arguments are convincing enough that I'm going to use GPLv3 rather than the Apache 2.0 license for my future open hardware work.
- kasbah 12y agoThe thing is, despite RMS touting it of course, most of the GPL is completely irrelevant to hardware designs. Please consider choosing a simpler license. For most design files a CC-BY-SA license will have the same effect and the intention will be much clearer. If you want to make explicit patent grants the Apache is actually a good fit. There is even a modified one aimed at digital fabrication which let's you specify that a certain mark has to be included if copied and fabricated [1]. GPL is good for software, HDL and circuit masks only. I have seen a lot of debate around what one is allowed to do with GPLed PCB footprints. Bit of a pain in the ass really. [1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20130718051941/http://jipel.law.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/1_Greenbaum_Three-DimensionalPrinting_NYUJipel_S13.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20130718051941/http://jipel.law.n...
- jck 12y agoWhy is the GPLv3 better than Apache 2.0 for HDL?
- bcg1 12y agoGood question. I wonder if the patent clause in GPL comes into play at all... and what constitute a 'derivative work' from HDL code... http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html#section11 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html#section11
- TD-Linux 12y agoThey are very similar. Both include an explicit patent grant. However, GPLv3 requires that redistributions keep the original HDL intact, which I prefer. Also, the fact that one of the primary authors considers it a good choice for hardware is also a factor.