[Open-graphics] New member Q&A
Timothy Normand Miller
theosib at gmail.com
Mon Feb 25 16:51:02 EST 2008
On 2/25/08, John Griessen <john at foseda.com> wrote:
> Timothy Normand Miller wrote:
> > On 2/24/08, PcgScrapAddy <pcgscrap at comcast.net> wrote:
> >> > This is one of our primary goals in terms of making a GPU for high-end
> >> > embedded systems.
> >> Excellent. I have experience with the eCos RTOS and am yearning to dive
> >> into uCLinux as well so I'd like to be kept in the loop when addressing
> >> the embedded space if possible.
> > We also would like to support the broadest possible set of platforms.
> > And in addition, we need well-documented development and lots of
> > MIT-licensed code that would allow any embedded system builder to make
> > our chip work with their system. (Not to mention community support on
> > the list.)
> Will you clarify the licensing of OGD1 hardware prototype card hardware?
The design documents are released under GPL. How copyrights apply to
the hardware itself is kinda iffy, though, but our intent is for the
GPL to apply just the same. If you make a clone of OGD1 from the
documents or by cutting apart an OGD1 board, we think of it as the
same, and we believe the GPL should apply. (Whether we could win a
court case is a separate matter.)
> Will you allow GPL license style derivatives of the hardware?
> The TT site says, "Free[*] Hardware Design (schematics)
> Free[*] Design PCI core
> * Released under GPL.
> I thought there was some requirement that hardware design contributors
> assigned ownership to Traversal Tech...? What is the OGP position on hardware license now?
For Traversal to earn revenue, we need "unlimited rights" to the
schematics and other copyrightable materials. But at the same time,
we also release our stuff under GPL. Look up how TrollTech and MySQL
do their dual-licensing scheme. Ours is similar.
> Will we be able to reuse verilog built into it?
Under GPL. Or alternatively, if you want to make a proprietary
product, you can pay us a commercial licensing fee. Then the GPL
doesn't apply. This arrangement is the same for both the board and
the HDL code.
> and are the PCI card drivers GPL now?
We recommend that drivers be released under the MIT license. This
makes them Free Software but not copylefted. The objective here is to
allow closed drivers to be written for the open hardware. This
maximally extends the number of platforms that can be supported,
thereby maximizing our market for selling hardware.
> I'm most interested in FPGA or ASIC based support for embedded linux chips for
> machine vision. Thinking of Atmel's AVR32 or ARM9 chips that have a linux-running processor
> and camera interface on one chip. Adding OGP functions in FPGA or TT's planned ASIC chip
> would be a boon to that, or possibly even cheaper lower power processors -- for machine vision
> for little robots, (no PC motherboards, just 3 or 4 chips).
That would be very cool.
Timothy Normand Miller
Open Graphics Project
More information about the Open-graphics