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. Re:Uh. Hardware is not software... by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can't copyright a hardware design (that's what patents are for). You could copyright a circuit board layout, or a schematic (the graphic, not the concept), but it's pretty easy for someone to redo either. Did you see the clickety link to the source code for the h.264 decoder?

    Software: Source code -> compiler -> magnetic bits on your hard drive.
    Hardware: Source code -> compiler -> lots of transistors in a chip.
    Copyright applies to any source code.
  2. Re:Well... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Public Domain.

    Well, it depends on your motivation. If you want your designs used as widely as possible, go with Public Domain or a BSD style license.

    However, this allows others to take your work & extend it without releasing the improvements back to the community (a good example of this is Apple's treatment of Darwin)

    If you want to ensure that any improvements to your hardware design remain open, go with the GPL.

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.