I wish people wouldn't use the LGPL for "hardware" without a legal opinion from the FSF. I mean what is "linking" for verilog code? - it does not fit the model. The intentions are fine but the mechanisms need work.
I don't know that the FSF has to say but I can easily imagine what the LGPL would mean in the context of hardware IPs: if you modify the core of the IP in any way you have to share the code. However the rest of the hardware that interacts through the documented interface or ports of the IP (that would be the "linked" part) is not subject to the license.
Modern ASICs are built around blocks connected by a system bus so it's actually quite a clear cut.
As I said, the intentions are clear but the license is inappropriate. Licenses, especially GPL style ones need to get the details right. What if you change the interfaces, how does that affect it, or if you change the process. can you draw the line where you like. And thats an LGPL style license. I have come across people using the GPL, what is the boundary of that system. The LGPL has all sorts of provisions specific to basically C libraries.
Is there a comparable license that achieves one of the goals of LGPL, that changes to the library get published? I doubt many open hardware publishers really have relinking in mind.
