BSD License

[takosuk]

Hi,

I have a question about the license that applies to the RISC-V based HDL codes (RTL) stored in this repository. It seems that BSD 3-clause License applies to the RTL to let everyone use the RTL without restrictions. I think such concept is very great for the users of the RTL but the users have to follow at least the one rule "reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer" as provided in the license when the users distribute the RTL "in binary form." My question is what you would expect the "binary form" is for the RTL. Is it FPGA into which the RTL is imported? Is it certain CPU made based on the RTL through the lithography process with the semiconductor masks? (Or, both of them?)

I think the interpretation would vary from person to person, so I would like to make sure your thought on that so that I can comply with the license accurately.

Thanks!

[samsoniuk]

Hi,

I think the "binary form" is any non-legible form, such as FPGA images, lithography film, physical chip, etc. So, the 2nd clause says that, in this case, the license stuff must be present in the documentation... any documentation, at least one! Suppose that you are making a secret chip for USAF, you probably have an internal documentation not intended for external distribution... no problem, put the license here, in a way that people are aware that the work include external stuff.

Note that that the license is more in order to try keep the legal limits clear:

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR
SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER
CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY,
OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

That means that you can use it freely, change, edit, modify, integrate, etc. but there is a contract that limits the author responsibility case of damage caused by his work. So, people will knows previously that there is external stuff inside and, in case of damage, they already knows that there is no way to make the original author responsible.

Best regards,
Marcelo

[takosuk]

Thank you for your prompt reply! It made my question clear. Based on such understanding, let me make the last question in relation to the previous question.

Actually, I do not have a capability to make the physical chip. So, I intend to ask my acquaintance to make such chip. To tell the detailed process that, 1. My acquaintance would download the RTL from the repository, 2. Then, he designs the chip by using the RTL based on specifications from me, 3. He makes a chip based on such design (i) by importing it into the FPGA or (ii) through the lithography process, and 4. He hands over the chip to me (distributes it to me).

Based on the understanding from your answer, my acquaintance should include the license stuff in documentation sent to me together with the chip (Is my understanding right, so far?).

After I receive the chip and the documentation, I intend to make a larger product that incorporates the chip in it. My last question is whether you would think I have to follow the 2nd clause of BSD license when I distribute such my product that incorporates the chip. I feel the requirement would be satisfied once my acquaintance sends me the documentation and I don't have to include such documentation into documentation for my own product that incorporates the chip. I do not intend to seek a loophole but I would like to understand your thought on that correctly.

Thanks!

[samsoniuk]

I think there is the relation between you and your chip designer/manufacturer and there is a different relation between you and your customers.

As far you need a contract between you and the chip designer/manufacturer, the contract must be clear regarding the licenses and responsibilities of all 3rd party RTL codes, so you and the designer/manufacturer recognizes that the 3rd party RTL code was retrieved 'as is' and you and your designer/manufacturer agreed to solve any problem/pending feature, as well agree to share the responsibility regarding any not solved problem/pending feature.

So, in this case (a contract between you and the chip designer/manufacturer) you MUST include the licenses, references, etc in the chip documentation.

However, in the case of you and your final customer, the relation is different because the chip is a small part of the design (there is probably a PCB with other chips, PSU, FW, SW, etc), in a way that you concentrate most of the responsibility regarding the product, including the decision/risk of use/adapt/modify a 3rd party RTL code, but you typically does not mention anything of this in the final customer documentation, so there is no need to include the 3rd party license there.

Well, I am not specialist regarding the licenses, so people may not agree with me... but that is I think about it.

[takosuk]

It's okay. I don't need the specialist's opinion. To avoid future disputes about the compliance with the license, I think the most reasonable way would be making sure the intention of the original author about the license. From such perspective, you gave me a helpful advice. I appreciate your taking time to answer my questions.

Thanks!