@whvholst @rysiek @jwildeboer @t0k @Steinar @benjaminpaikjones Still, in the end you're either allowed to create derivatives or you're not, and it's conditional on you paying that privilege forward, or it's not.

It's possible that "reciprocal" is more immediately-obvious to newcomers than "copyleft", and it's a term used by some other licenses and entities too. But that's not really related to how copyrightable, pattern-protectable or other neighboring rights-able hardware is.

The surface terminology still applies even though the licenses may need to be implemented using different legal language.

@clacke @rysiek @jwildeboer @t0k @Steinar @benjaminpaikjones The notion of derivation is very much a copyright thing (and very fuzzy in copyright law). Like I said, the relationship between hardware and copyright is complicated and putting requirements on derivation may be moot if copyright is not in play to begin with. So it's nowhere near as binary as you present it. In a lot of cases the honest answer is "I don't know".

@whvholst @rysiek @jwildeboer @t0k @Steinar @benjaminpaikjones ARM doesn't seem to have a problem licensing it's designs. If you need a license, you're in a situation where copyleft can apply.

"its", gobnabbit

@clacke @rysiek @jwildeboer @t0k @Steinar @benjaminpaikjones ARM operates in a space in which the applicablity of patents *and* semiconductor topology rights are without legal controversy. Apples and oranges comparison.

@whvholst @rysiek @jwildeboer @t0k @Steinar @benjaminpaikjones Is that a different space from where free hardware designs would operate?

@clacke @rysiek @jwildeboer @t0k @Steinar @benjaminpaikjones Yes, unless those designs would involve ASICs. Come to think of it, FPGAs are an interesting edge case here, again. Basically, in hardware you cannot solely rely on copyright because the "maker's mark" is not always there. So you end up with more exotic IPR that typically requires (some form of) registration (patents, semiconductor topologies). Which doesn't work too well with open hardware either. So, it's very, very messy.

@clacke @rysiek @jwildeboer @t0k @Steinar @benjaminpaikjones All of this is perfectly navigable for players like ARM, much less so for open hardware projects. I do recommend the stuff Andrew Katz has written about this, including talks at FOSDEM.

@whvholst @rysiek @jwildeboer @t0k @Steinar @benjaminpaikjones I don't see why ASICs would be very different from a fixed medium like a CD-ROM, but law has done weirder things.

I see why they might be treated different from FPGAs, which I suppose might be treated more like executing software or somewhere in between.

Thanks for the suggestion on material, I'll check that out.

@clacke @rysiek @jwildeboer @t0k @Steinar @benjaminpaikjones You're now confusing a medium for data storage with an object of an imaginary property right. Those aren't in the same category at all.

@whvholst @clacke @rysiek @jwildeboer @Steinar @benjaminpaikjones You seem to be well informed. Do you know the CERN OHL (Open Hardware Licence)? What is your opinion about it regarding ASICs?

@t0k @clacke @rysiek @jwildeboer @Steinar @benjaminpaikjones I haven't really looked at the last version yet. At first cursory glance I don't like it from a legal clarity viewpoint. It is very copyright-oriented, but without making clear what "property rights" are in play. Unlike the GPL which makes it abudantly clear that it is a copyright license first and foremost, and if necessary also a patent license.