|
This page is a container serving as a basis for communication during the
|
|
This page is a container serving as a basis for communication during the
|
|
CERN OHL v2 drafting process. It has the [draft
|
|
CERN OHL v2 drafting process. It has the [draft
|
|
text](https://www.ohwr.org/5971)
|
|
text](https://www.ohwr.org/5990)
|
|
attached, as well as an embryo of the Frequently Asked Questions which
|
|
attached, as well as an embryo of the Frequently Asked Questions which
|
|
will accompany the release.
|
|
will accompany the release. There is also a
|
|
|
|
[rationale](https://www.ohwr.org/5991)
|
|
|
|
document to provide some context for our decisions and make
|
|
|
|
understanding of the draft text easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Frequently Asked Questions about CERN OHL v2
|
|
# Frequently Asked Questions about CERN OHL v2
|
|
|
|
|
... | @@ -254,7 +257,23 @@ has the right to make them available to the public. |
... | @@ -254,7 +257,23 @@ has the right to make them available to the public. |
|
|
|
|
|
#### Q: Is CERN OHL v2 compatible with GPL?
|
|
#### Q: Is CERN OHL v2 compatible with GPL?
|
|
|
|
|
|
A:
|
|
A: No. From the [rationale
|
|
|
|
document](https://www.ohwr.org/5991):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> We thought hard about compatibility with other licences. An earlier
|
|
|
|
> version of the draft contained a mechanism for options, and a specific
|
|
|
|
> option which allowed compatibility with GPLv3. There’s an easy way to
|
|
|
|
> allow compatibility, of course: you can insert a clause which
|
|
|
|
> explicitly allows relicensing, but this necessarily means that one of
|
|
|
|
> the licences will have characteristics which are more forgiving than
|
|
|
|
> the other, and users can just pick whichever licence they want. If the
|
|
|
|
> original licensor wanted to do this in the first place, they could
|
|
|
|
> simply dual license under CERN-OHL and GPLv3. We also found that the
|
|
|
|
> mechanism we chose was pretty cumbersome, especially since to make it
|
|
|
|
> work, we needed also to add an additional permission to GPLv3. Since
|
|
|
|
> we’re essentially asking people to relicense their GPLv3 components
|
|
|
|
> anyway (albeit within the mechanism), we felt we should be more
|
|
|
|
> explicit about this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... | | ... | |