Re: changes made/thanks (re hardware designs)

[Graham Seaman <graham@collector.hscs.wmin.ac.uk>]

> 
> You seem to have misunderstood something else that I wrote.  You seem
> to think I said that copyright does not apply to HDL and printed
> circuit layouts.  Would you please show me the precise words of mine
> where you think I said that?
> 
You did not say that. But since it seems I really am misunderstanding
that article, I will ask some questions about it in the hope that
you can correct the misunderstandings... (I've tagged the whole of
the relevant paragraph onto the end of this email for context).

You wrote:

(1)> the strength of copyleft when applied to circuits is limited.

I am not clear what you mean by 'circuits' in the quoted
sentence above. If you mean exactly 'circuits', it appears to contradict
your sentence:

(2)>Circuits cannot be copylefted because they cannot be copyrighted.

Because of the apparent contradiction, I had assumed that in quoted 
sentence (1) above, you were using the word 'circuits' as a kind of 
shorthand for the phrase 'drawings or layouts of circuits', but that 
in the quoted sentence (2) you were using the word 'circuit' to mean 
the underlying definition rather than the expression in a drawing, 
layout, etc. 

If that assumption of mine is not correct, then I really don't understand
what you are saying in these two sentences. Could you explain more?

A second question relating to the same paragraph of your article.
You wrote:

>  Likewise, a drawing or layout of a circuit can be copylefted, but
>  this only covers the drawing or layout, not the circuit itself.
>  What this means is that anyone can legally draw the same circuit
>  topology in a different-looking way, or write a different HDL
>  definition which produces the same circuit.

In this case what you wrote appears very clear but I am not sure
of the implications. Is this very different from the situation
in software, where a program may be rewritten in a different way yet
produce the same output? I had assumed [not from anything you said explicitly] 
that you were implying that this was a situation without a direct parallel
in software, and one which made copyright law much weaker in the case
of (say) HDL definitions than in the case of software in general.
If my assumption was wrong, then yes, I have completely misunderstood
the tone of your article. Is this assumption incorrect?

Final question: you wrote:
>However, copylefting HDL definitions and printed circuit layouts may do
>some good nonetheless.  
What kind of 'good' is intended here? 
Would a possible paraphrase be '...layouts may perhaps be legally enforceable
nonetheless'? Or are you talking about other kinds of possible good effects, in
which case what might they be and what kind of limitation do you intend by 
the word 'some'?
> 
> I work hard to write precise and careful statements; would you please
> read them precisely and carefully?
>
I'm trying...

Best wishes
Graham 

Original paragraph:
>   Circuits cannot be copylefted because they cannot be
>   copyrighted. Definitions of circuits written in HDL (hardware
>   definition languages) can be copylefted, but the copyleft covers
>   only the expression of the definition, not the circuit itself.
>   Likewise, a drawing or layout of a circuit can be copylefted, but
>   this only covers the drawing or layout, not the circuit itself. What
>   this means is that anyone can legally draw the same circuit
>   topology in a different-looking way, or write a different HDL
>   definition which produces the same circuit. Thus, the strength of
>   copyleft when applied to circuits is limited. However,
>   copylefting HDL definitions and printed circuit layouts may do
>   some good nonetheless.