Xilinx Legal
in [FPGA]
|
From: cs_posting on 30 Jan 2006 17:10 Austin Lesea wrote: > John, > > No, you can not assume anything. In fact, I think you (personally) > should talk to our legal department, and reach an agreement. It seems to me that part of the problem is that Xilinx is used to negotiating special provisions with customers one by one, and may even be quite responsive and liberal in doing so with fairly small customers. That's fine for closed projects, but open source efforts under "free software" licensing may only make use of information or components which may be freely shared with all potential users, with the only restrictions on disclosure, permissable uses or modifications being that you cannot impose new restrictions on disclosure, permissable use or modification. As a result, the only usefull answers to the kinds of questions that have been asked are published, public ones. Though some of the questioning and floating of trial answers could take place behind the scenes.
From: fpga_toys on 30 Jan 2006 17:24 cs_posting(a)hotmail.com wrote: > That's fine for closed projects, but open source efforts under "free > software" licensing may only make use of information or components > which may be freely shared with all potential users, with the only > restrictions on disclosure, permissable uses or modifications being > that you cannot impose new restrictions on disclosure, permissable use > or modification. > > As a result, the only usefull answers to the kinds of questions that > have been asked are published, public ones. I can not personally broker a deal for an open source project, because I can not control the use and modification of the project in the open public. I would not accept the personal liability should Xilinx think I could even control what happens to the information after we publish it. So public discussion, that all can use is the only productive forum for open source uses.
From: cs_posting on 30 Jan 2006 17:32 fpga_toys(a)yahoo.com wrote: > I can not personally broker a deal for an open source project, because > I can not control the use and modification of the project in the open > public. I would not accept the personal liability should Xilinx think I > could even control what happens to the information after we publish > it. > > So public discussion, that all can use is the only productive forum > for open source uses. I think you could get the ball rolling with some email, but I agree that all of the 'decisions' woul d have to be very public, and even enough late-stage discussion to illuminate them, for the result to be of any use for a free and open project. It seems like you are hoping Xilinx legal will meet you here. That might be a good result, but you may have to first talk to them on their turf to issue the invitation.
From: John Williams on 30 Jan 2006 17:42 Austin Lesea wrote: > "XDL and related info being a public use interface to ISE outside of NDA > restrictions" is clearly prohibited. > > But, if XDL is used inside of the agreement, then that is OK. > > For example, if you created a XDL file with our tools, and then > processed it with your tool, and then wanted to use in in silicon other > than Xilinx, that is prohibited. It seems that there are really two different issues at stake here (in the context of people wanting to release open source XDL-interfacing tools). 1. - disclosing the XDL interface. The XDL file format is not published anywhere (I don't think, not even in Xilinx doco). So almost by definition, to use it you have to reverse engineer it. Thus, to release an open source tool that speaks XDL, you are disclosing Xilinx proprietary information that was obtained contrary to the terms of the EULA. That's naughty, and probably justifies a nastygram from the lawyers. 2. - targetting non-Xilinx parts. Disregarding (1) above, if I release a tool that speaks XDL, am I responsible for what people do with it? I would argue "no", but I'm sure you could find a lawyer who would argue "yes". That's a legalistic interpretation. But, back in the real world, what Xilinx wants to do is sell FPGAs. The best way to get Xilinx on side is to help them do that. They'll either look the other way, help you along, or if you're really good at it - buy you out. So, how do you create an XDL tool that does a "reach through" on Xilinx's condition that you only use Xilinx tools to target Xilinx parts? Well, maybe hybrid licensing is one approach. As long as you write the software from scratch, with no existing GPL (e.g.) code, then you can license the tool under any conditions you like[1]. For example, you could say "This software is released under the terms of the Gnu General Pulbic License version 2.0 (or BSD or whatever), PLUS the provision that the tool be used only to target Xilinx FPGAs". You'll probably want a lawyer to write this one, and Xilinx's lawyers would also want a look in. Richard Stallman would probably have a minor fit over the concept of bundling an commercial exclusivity clause with the GPL, but oh well. What you've now created is a hybrid license, incompatible with the pure GPL (ok, so you can't host it on sourceforge, no big deal). If someone uses the tool to target an Altera part, then they are breaking the conditions of their license and it is therefore immediately revoked. You would add a viral clause which makes sure that further refinements of the tool are also covered by the same dual condition (GPL + Xilinx only). So, if the goal here is to develop open source XDL tools, I think there are probably creative solutions, that will involve some compromises. If the goal is just to whinge about Xilinx's EULAs, then mission accomplished, and we can all go back to work. Regards, John [1] If it's your code, you can insert any condition you like, no matter how silly. How about "It is a condition of using this software that you wear a propellor-head cap and stick your tongue out while doing so". Very silly, but if you don't like the conditions, don't use the software!
From: fpga_toys on 30 Jan 2006 17:45
cs_posting(a)hotmail.com wrote: > It seems like you are hoping Xilinx legal will meet you here. That > might be a good result, but you may have to first talk to them on their > turf to issue the invitation. Actually what I was hoping for was an open source advocate inside the company to act as the interface point between public discussions and Xilinx Legal. If the culture is clearly anti-open source, then I surely would not expect someone to put their job on the line as an advocate. Actually, I think I've already been accurately given the answers, and took a lot of heat for exposing part of the private discussions I have had about this touchy subject. |