[License-review] For Approval – CERN Open Hardware Licence Version 2– Strongly Reciprocal (SPDX: CERN-OHL-S-2.0); CERN Open Hardware Licence Version 2– Weakly Reciprocal (SPDX: CERN-OHL-W-2.0); CERN Open Hardware Licence Version 2– Permissive (SPDX: CERN-OHL-P-2.0)

Javier Serrano Javier.Serrano at cern.ch
Wed Nov 25 17:51:12 UTC 2020


On 11/21/20 12:36 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 11/19/20 11:36 AM, Javier Serrano wrote:
>> The gateware use case is a central one for us. The lack of adequate
>> weakly and strongly reciprocal options for HDL was one of the main
>> reasons to draft v2 of the licence. I may have been a bit sloppy with my
>> wording in the FAQ. What I meant by software was non-gateware software.
>> To the extent that gateware is software, as explained above, I think
>> CERN OHL v2 is not only applicable, but a licence I would very much
>> recommend.
> 
> The FAQ doesn't address gateware either, at least not by name.
> Presumably that's what it's addressing when it talks about "design	
> software"?

This is the FAQ URL: https://ohwr.org/project/cernohl/wikis/faq

As you can see, there is an explanation in it of our use of the term 
"gateware", and no reference to "design software". Maybe you are looking 
at a different document? In any case, no, "design software" and 
"gateware" are two different things. We reserve the term "gateware" for 
files typically written in Hardware Description Languages (HDL) such as 
VHDL or Verilog. These files describe hardware and are input to 
simulation or synthesis depending on whether you are verifying your 
design or using it as a basis to make or configure hardware.

> That actually is fairly well spelled-out in the FAQ, if so.  And it's
> really not fundamentally different from the compiler case in copyleft
> software.
> 
> But ... the FAQ doesn't address non-gateware software at all.  If we're
> evaluating that use-case on this list, it think it's critical to
> identify how you see the various "kinds" of source playing out with a
> standard software + 3rd-party library situation.
> 

We write about non-gateware software in this FAQ entry:

https://ohwr.org/project/cernohl/wikis/faq#q-my-project-includes-hardware-and-software-how-do-i-make-sure-the-whole-product-is-distributed-together-and-stays-open-source

My contention in the previous message I sent is that gateware can be 
considered software and is actually the type of software we care about 
most in the context of CERN OHL v2, since we don't actively recommend, 
in principle, its use for non-gateware software.

Anyway, to answer your question directly: you will find if you read the 
license texts that applying the P variant to software will have an 
effect similar to that of Apache 2. In an analogous way, W will behave 
roughly like LGPL3 and S will behave as GPL3. This is of course 
approximate, but quite accurate in particular regarding the "standard 
software + 3rd-party library" scenario you mention. You cannot 
distribute a binary made of a combination of proprietary and CERN-OHL-S 
sources, but you can if you use the W variant instead of the S variant.

I hope this answers your questions. I am preparing a presentation on the 
CERN OHL for next Tuesday [1] and I will make sure I include details on 
using the three variants of the license for software and hardware, with 
a dedicated chapter on the particular case of gateware.

Cheers,

Javier

[1] 
https://www.ch-open.ch/en/online-presentation-cern-open-hardware-licence/ (tricky 
time if you are in the US)



More information about the License-review mailing list