[Open-graphics] Definition of Open Hardware

[Terry Hancock]

Patrick McNamara wrote:
>  I am rather wary of trying to write our own license for several
>  reasons: confusions and complexity being two of the big ones. The
>  process of hammering out the license is complex if we actually try
>  and take into account all the voices of the community and there will
>  no doubt be confusion about what we are trying to do. Though I don't
>  really know how much the confusion will matter.

I think you're right. Writing a new license from scratch would be 
fraught with problems, not least of which is that it would be 
incompatible (e.g. do you want to be able to use GPL-licensed cores from 
Open Cores?).

>  I believe the GPL applies here as it stands. The "code" for
>  generating a chip is no different than the C/Java/Ruby/Forth/<insert
>  your favorite language here> code used to create a computer program.
>  Just the compilation steps are different.

While this is compelling from an engineering standpoint (it's a nice 
analogy), I think the language in the GPL is not clear on how it should 
be interpreted for hardware.

One way to solve that is to say explicitly what you mean in a "license 
grant", where you say something like: "For the purposes of this license, 
'compilation' will be interpreted to mean fabrication of components 
mastered from the source documents" or some such wording.

> > programmer's guide is needed. What should we call this? Open
> > Documented Hardware.
>
>  Again, I agree. And while the OHF should support Open Hardware
>  projects, if we are lucky enough to gain any influence, it should
>  also lobby regular companies to produce Open Documented Hardware as
>  JRT calls it. You could also call this Open Design Hardware.

I like calling it "Open Specification" hardware.   Please, let's not use 
"Open Design" to mean this, because to me it sounds like you mean the 
design of the hardware is open (i.e. the other kind of "open").

>  The
>  implementation may not be open, but all the details necessary to
>  produce a compatible replacement are, assuming you have the skills
>  and resources to do so.

Yeah, that's what I call the "specifications" for the implementation: 
essentially it's a description of the interfaces it must provide.

>  Though a number of them would be
>  loath to admit is for quasi-religious reasons,

Frankly, I'm at peace with my "quasi-religious reasons".  Sometimes the 
best reason for a thing is not the same as the practical reason. ;-)

Or as my English teacher used to tell me, "Every man has two reasons for 
everything he does: the perfectly reasonable reason he tells you, and 
the real reason".  I imagine he was quoting somebody, but I don't know whom.

>  I would venture that
>  most in the Open Source community would plenty happy if all that ever
>  happened in the world was a shift towards open documentation of
>  hardware. In reality, this is all the Open Source Software community
>  really needs.

In the static sense, yes.  But truly open hardware is a better way to 
ensure this in the long run.

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com