Do we need an open hardware license? (Linux.com)

Do we need an open hardware license? (Linux.com)

Posted Aug 1, 2007 18:57 UTC (Wed) by jd (guest, #26381)
In reply to: Do we need an open hardware license? (Linux.com) by stumbles
Parent article: Do we need an open hardware license? (Linux.com)

OpenSPARC and the ESA's clone of the old Sparc were both GPLed. OpenCores has a mix of GPL, BSD and other Open Source licenses. I don't see the problem with what we have - although I think it could be worded better to include hardware logic and not just software logic.

As for scaring hardware vendors - they're beginning to get in on the game themselves. Sun, for example. Most (I'd say 400 of the original 500) of IBM's patents that were Open Sourced are hardware patents, not software. It might make Intel and AMD nervous, but really there's nobody else who would particularly care.

Most of the money comes from chips that Open Source developers would be unlikely to compete with for decades. We're talking 8-channel 26-bit 10 megahertz ADCs, rad-hardened memory, 160 gigabit/second network chips, etc. Sorry, but Joe Hacker is unlikely to have the ability to compete in that market right now. Some day, yes, but not today.

PCI Express 2.1 controllers and switches? Sure. I don't see that being a problem. DMA and MMU chips? Yeah, yeah. 100 megabit ethernet controllers? I could see that becoming a high-school project, with extra marks if you can support V+RNIC extensions. Intelligent on-disk controllers? You might need a soldering iron to replace the old one, but that's the hard part.

These are all things that companies barely make any profit on at all, these days, and possibly have to sell at a loss in some cases. Open sourcing wouldn't hurt, it might even boost their profit margins.

Have you browsed the summaries on Freshmeat with regards LinuxBIOS? Do so and think about what is supported right now. Then tell me why anyone should care if it's provided or not, beyond ease-of-use.

---

(Log in to post comments)