Xilinx Legal
in [FPGA]
|
From: John Williams on 30 Jan 2006 19:50 Phil Tomson wrote: > In article <newscache$3egxti$xu7$1(a)lbox.itee.uq.edu.au>, > John Williams <jwilliams(a)itee.uq.edu.au> 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). > > 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. The loss is not practical, so much as philsophical. There is a critical distinction between "Open Source" software and "Free" software. "GPL + Xilinx only" could be open source, but it is definitely not Free. Some developers may not care, for others it could be a show-stopper. John
From: cs_posting on 30 Jan 2006 20:07 Phil Tomson wrote: > >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. Still, it's essentially impossible to do this and have the tool be open source. If the code is open source it can be published in a book; that book can be purchased as a physical object and under the first sale doctrine used as reference material to guide any effort someone wants - including trying to make chips that compete with Xilinx. > 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. Yes, that would simplify things. Another option is that some of the applications (reconfigureble computing for example) might not need the whole thing to be able to show results promising enough to warrant consideration of expanded releases in the future. If I understood the complaint with high level interfaces for that application, it's that the authors of these experimental tools want to produce very low level, repetitive structures, but modern synthesis tools take their carefully crafted output and munge it by in essence trying to figure out what the silly human wanted so that they can optomize it with trade secrets - which in this unique case is counterproductive. What if just enough of the format of XDL or something similar were released to expose a low level "programming" interface that's sort of a gigantic version of a very primitive FPGA architecture, either without most of the modern improvements other than size, or without anything but the most basic ways of using whatever advanced functional blocks are included in the release? It seems if something like that could be released, and people demonstrated something interesting with it that hinted at chip sales, maybe cases could be made for releasing other information.
From: fpga_toys on 30 Jan 2006 20:38 Phil Tomson wrote: > 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. To do RubyHDL ... IE ... produce netlists, you also need the objects publicly defined that you need to build a netlist describing connections with. Also, the EULA doesn't offer distribution rights to others bound by it. That will take a separate agreement with Xilinx legal where you take on some personal liability for your RubyHDL's distribution and use.
From: Simon Peacock on 31 Jan 2006 01:38 I think that the issue of what's open source and what's propriety in Xilinx tools is not very well defined. Three licenses pop up at the start, The Xilinx "shall not" and 2 GPL "you can as you please" Xilinx don't distinguish what license covers what programs/libraries etc. Something GNU (and any lawyer) will say you must make clear. I would also suggest that why even bother with XDL in the first place.. sure its great for Xilinx... but make a common object language. This can be compiled into either Xilinx XDL.. which can use the Xilinx Tool chain to build an FPGA.. or into Altera to let Quartus do its thing. or any other FPGA Vender. The main thing is what's in your source. No Xilinx Libraries, no Altera, no nothing except GPL. In fact.. that's what Mentor and others do already by using EDF files. Then there aren't any legal issues ? Right ? XDL is then only used for Xilinx's :-) Simon "Austin Lesea" <austin(a)xilinx.com> wrote in message news:drm501$3ls9(a)xco-news.xilinx.com... > 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? > > Austin >
From: Larry Doolittle on 30 Jan 2006 18:35
On 2006-01-30, Austin Lesea <austin(a)xilinx.com> wrote: > > There is nothing "open source" about any of Xilinx's software. I think everyone here understands that. While I consider it regrettable, I choose not to agitate for a change in that situation. > 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). That's a nice statement. Please back it up by posting the document titled "Xilinx Design Language" on the 'net, accessible to people who have not clicked on the ISE EULA. The copy I see in an old ISE-6.2 install is Version 1.6, updated 07/07/2000. Nobody (I hope) wants to pirate that copyrighted work. But our rights to use the information contained in that document would be much clearer -- and legally match both the assertions made here in c.a.f and the implications in the XDL document itself -- if that document got untangled from the ISE EULA. > 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? That's not for me to decide. The point of being squeaky-clean legal is that an XDL-using project would not get shut down even _if_ Xilinx decided to care. - Larry |