Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Best Open Source License For Hardware?

Posted by kdawson on from the not-a-core-in-the-world dept.

An anonymous reader writes "MIT recently open-sourced some really cool hardware designs, including an H.264 video decoder and an OFDM transceiver, under MIT's open source license (a.k.a. the X11 license). Now, the OpenCores FAQ recommends that people use either the GPL, LGPL, or modified BSD license; they do not mention the MIT license at all. And, according to the Free Software Foundation the GPL license can be used for hardware, but they do not list the LPGL, modified BSD, or MIT licenses as suitable for non-software. Would you or your company use hardware source-released under the MIT license? What's the best license to use for releasing hardware?"

2 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. What's the best licence? by gazbo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The fuck kind of question is that? Next on Slashdot: What's the best colour?

  2. Obvious by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It's obvious that the FSF will only list GPL (or GPL compatible) licences. They have a very *very* obvious agenda which they are proud of. There opinions are *very* clearly biased in a *very* clear direction. They are a *very* poor source of information, even when it comes to there own licenses (I've found several false and misleading material on there site which they refused to fix).

    FYI, to the original poster: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A BEST LICENSE. To think there is, is to ignore reality. The "best" license will change from person to person, from company to company,... profoundly impacted by the goals of the "project."

    Who allowed this story to surface? How many times does this bullshit have to come up on this site?