Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message 20090707135141.7979827c@hskinnemoen-d830 you wrote:
While I think fighting for extensible and "hackable" hardware is good, I think a software license is the wrong way to go about it. Let's stick to the proven model of GPLv2: You can use my software if I get to use your improvements. Trying to impose restrictions on this model in order
The point is that GPLv2 results in situations where you cannot use and modify your own software any more because it is "protected" and any versions you build don't run.
But this is a problem with the _hardware_, not the software. I think placing restrictions on the hardware design is way outside the scope of a software license.
Even if the hardware is restricted this way, you can still take the software, modify it, and run it on a different, better piece of hardware. If you play your cards right, you might even come out with a healthy profit as people see that your product based on unrestricted hardware is simply _better_ (which is a term I think covers "more free" as well.)
In my experience, the most popular AVR-based boards are the ones that not only allow the firmware to be replaced freely, but which actively encourage modification by making lots of signals available through expansion headers. This kind of "hackability" can never be enforced through any kind of software license.
Haavard