Xilinx Legal
in [FPGA]
|
From: Jan Panteltje on 30 Jan 2006 18:55 On a sunny day (Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:56:47 -0800) it happened Austin Lesea <austin(a)xilinx.com> wrote in <drluif$3ls4(a)xco-news.xilinx.com>: >Jan, > >Xilinx restricts the use of the bitstream to only be used with its products. > >In that sense, we retain "ownership." I am not a lawyer, so I can't >speak or quote legalize. What I placed in quotes was from a lawyer. > >They do not make typos. > >I might. > >Austin > OK, in that sense I can live with it. I hope that we, as non lawyers, will not be creating a problem where it is not, or not supposed to be. Since I have no intention of using the bitstreams webpack generates for anything else then Xilinx devices, I think I am in the clear :-) Regards Jan
From: Phil Tomson on 30 Jan 2006 18:52 In article <1138660375.447864.74580(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, <cs_posting(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >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. My wife was a paralegal in the past couple of years till she realized she really didn't like working with Lawyers... Anyway, one of her daily tasks was to print out email that had come for each of the lawyers in the office. They apparently couldn't figure out how to read email on their computer, they needed someone to give them a hardcopy of it - that being the case, I don't know how you'll get lawyers to use usenet ;-) So, to summerize the legal problem as I understand it so far: 1) Xilinx people (presumably AEs) have said that you can use XDL (including parsing it) so long as you don't violate the EULA - and then they say that using XDL to target Xilinx parts will not violate the EULA. 2) Others (fpga-toys) say NO, you can't even parse XDL without violating the EULA because to do so requires you to know the format of XDL which is not published anywhere and is only available by running the xdl command and looking at the resulting file (and since the xdl program is covered by the EULA it's output is also covered). So you can't freely distribute a program that parses XDL. You could parse it with your own program, but you wouldn't be able to legally distribute the parser to others because they might not be under the EULA. (there are other claims made by fpga-toys related to the exclusive nature of XDL use not being compatible with open source licenses like GPL - but for now let's stick with the first two issues and get back to this one later) It seems that I recall somewhere in one of these threads that someone from Xilinx mentioned an appnote about XDL. If one existed, that described the format of XDL wouldn't that constitute a public documentation of XDL which is not covered by EULA? However, I could not find such an appnote on the Xilinx site when I searched for it. If such an appnote exists, where is it? If the appnote doesn't exist, would it be possible for Xilinx to create one? It would need to describe the XDL format and then be published on the Xilinx site. It seems to me that this would go a long ways towards resolving the legal ambiguity of creating open source tools around XDL. Since the XDL format itself looks quite simple, I would imagine that a document like this wouldn't need to be very long. I would also bet that the software group within Xilinx already has documention that would work. How about it Xilinx folks? Can you get permission from your lawyers to publish an XDL spec on your website? If you can, that would probably resolve the issue. If your lawyers say no, then I suspect it wouldn't help for me (or any other outside entity) to ask and I would also be hesitant to create any open source XDL tools because of the potential legal issues. It's an easy question for you to ask your lawyers and the answer would tell us a lot. Phil
From: Phil Tomson on 30 Jan 2006 19:04 In article <drm501$3ls9(a)xco-news.xilinx.com>, Austin Lesea <austin(a)xilinx.com> wrote: >cs, > >Going from "using XDL" for some unspecified reason, to "open source" is >a big step. Too big. > >There is nothing "open source" about any of Xilinx's software. > >Right now, the discussion has been about an ASCII representation of >connections that Xilinx developed as a convenience (replaced an earlier >format). > >XDL's use is only restricted by the agreements on the software that >created it, and uses it (that we supply). It also specifically allows >uses (for which it is intended) like someone writes a parser to generate >a nice report from the XDL file (noted in the comments on XDL in our >documentation). > >If you chose XDL to use as your intermediate language for your CS111 >FPGA, I think it would be a curious choice, but one we would not have >much claim to, as if you had your own tools to create it, and use it, >test it; and you never used our tools, IP, or patents, why would we care? Yeah, nobody's looking to do that because, like you say, it wouldn't make sense. Austin, Please see my other post made just a few minutes prior to this one: Basically I asked someone at Xilinx to ask your legal dept if you can publish an appnote that shows the format of XDL on your website. If you can do that, then I think we're fine. If not, then it won't help for outside entities (such as myself) to ask your legal dept if it's OK if I develop open source tools that parse and manipulate XDL. If your lawyers tell you No then that would give us an indication of whether or not we need to spend anymore energy pursuing this route. If your lawyers give you the green light, then I think we're fine. To reiterate: The only way we can build an XDL parser at this point is to look at the output of the xdl program. If we were to build an XDL parser and then release it freely it looks like we violate the EULA. We're not asking for XDL to be put under an open source license (at least I'm not); we're asking that the XDL format be made available somewhere on your website such that the format itself is available outside of the EULA. Then, if I'm understanding the legal arguments made by fpga-toys correctly, we _could_ create an XDL parser and release it freely (the XDL parser under open source) without violating the EULA. Phil
From: Phil Tomson on 30 Jan 2006 19:15 In article <newscache$3egxti$xu7$1(a)lbox.itee.uq.edu.au>, John Williams <jwilliams(a)itee.uq.edu.au> wrote: >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). Yes, I've been thinking exactly the same thing. I don't see where requiring Xilinx-only usage is all that big of a deal, AND practically speaking you don't give up much at all since most retargetting should probalby be done at some higher level anyway. > >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. > Really, I think all we need at this point is for someone at Xilinx to get permission to put an XDL file format spec on their website somewhere as an appnote. If that can be done, then I think we're good to go. Phil
From: Phil Tomson on 30 Jan 2006 19:19
In article <1138663721.351662.283480(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, <cs_posting(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >John Williams wrote: > >> 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). > >But what if someone figures out XDL by reverse engineering your tool, >rather than Xilinx's software? How do you prohibit someone from >reverse engineering (ie, reading and taking notes) open code? > If the XDL file format is available on the Xilinx site they wouldn't need to RE our tool. At that point if some 3rd party creates an XDL->[Altera|Atmel|...] tool, then it's the 3rd party's problem, not ours. But again, practically speaking I really don't think that it's the best place for doing design retargetting. Phil |