[Open-graphics] Definition of Open Hardware

[Lance Hanlen]

Einstein once said "To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate
made me an authority myself."

I feel like this contribution is a punishment for my contempt for this
thread :) but I can't just sit by and say nothing!

The search for meaning is important, but please consider how you spend
your time when you start arguing the law.

These are matters for the most seasoned and experienced professionals,
such as the Columbia professor who contributed the bulk of the GPL.

Without such a contribution, we are looking at millions of dollars of
professional research and services.

Attila's comments bear the most weight with me. Unless you (notice I
didn't say we!) have the cash to spend now, just wait for events to
take shape, someone (qualified!) may solve this problem for us, maybe
even the same professor.

One positive step could be to contact him and inquire?

On 10/4/06, Terry Hancock <hancock at anansispaceworks.com> wrote:
> Nicolas Boulay wrote:
> >  2006/10/4, Lourens Veen <lourens at rainbowdesert.net>:
> > > So, it isn't the case that the ASIC mask is derived from the HDL,
> > > and the actual chip is derived from the ASIC mask, producing chips
> > > is copying the copyrighted design and selling them is distribution?
> >
> >  No because GPL is a licence based on copyright laws, a goods is not
> >  covered by copyright law.
>
> Actually, this is wrong. Copyrighted copies *are* goods too, and
> copyright certainly does apply to them.  The thing that makes the
> copyright law applicable is that these goods convey information.
>
> A printed book -- a material good composed of paper, cardboard, and ink
> -- is considered to "distribute" its information content.  Printing and
> binding is considered to be part of a reproduction process for that
> information.
>
> Likewise, O/S software burned into a ROM is considered to be software
> distribution (courts have upheld this interpretation in multiple
> jurisdictions).
>
> Note, however, the term "derive" is used incorrectly above.  The ASIC
> mask is "reproduced" onto the chip, just as a litho plate is
> "reproduced" onto a printed page. That is, it is a copying process which
> does not produce a "new work" for the purposes of copyright.  Litho
> plates for a book are under the same copyright as the pages they print,
> as is the typesetting document and the original text file: they're all
> copies of a single "work".
>
> If you want to see what I'm getting at with this distinction, consider
> the boundary case of "photographic images of flat art":
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp
>
> (This addresses whether such a photograph is a new work with a new
> copyright, or merely a copy of an old work -- note that what makes this
> fuzzy is when the copying process is not automatic. In our case, it is
> highly automated, so the case is more clear cut).
>
> Cheers,
> Terry
>
> --
> Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
> Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Open-graphics mailing list
> Open-graphics at duskglow.com
> http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
> List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
>


-- 
_Lance