Site Home   Archive Home   FAQ Home   How to search the Archive   How to Navigate the Archive   
Compare FPGA features and resources   

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2017
2018JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2018
2019JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2019
2020JanFebMarAprMay2020

Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Custom Search

Messages from 96125

Article: 96125
Subject: Open source access to generate netlists into Altera tools? Others?
From: fpga_toys@yahoo.com
Date: 30 Jan 2006 14:37:11 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Ok, to be completely fair now that Xilinx clearly doesn't allow open
source tools to generate net lists for the features of current Xilinx
devices (other than old limited EDIF and XNF interfaces), just what
access does open source have to generate usable netlists for Altera
products?

What fpga companies are open to open source tools augmenting their
vendor supplied tools to support their products?


Article: 96126
Subject: Re: XDL Tools wiki site
From: Austin Lesea <austin@xilinx.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:38:33 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
John,

If you create a XDL from using Xilinx tools, then the license says that 
the XDL must be used to program a Xilinx device, and that you are 
prevented from doing any reverse engineering, disclosure of IP, etc.

Nothing would prevent you from writing a parser that prepared a nice 
usage report for display, however.

Or, if you use an XDL that you create, and then put it back into a 
Xilinx tool, the same license restrictions apply.

I am not sure, but I don't see any other uses of XDL covered by the 
agreement.  It is, after all, just an ASCII format of connections.

Why anyone would use it, and not use our tools, I wouldn't know.

They could just as well use YADL (yet another design language - I have 
no copyrights, or trademarks, so I make this acronym freely available to 
all).



One case I see now is that you create a tool to convert something (like 
c) into XDL.  Then someone else uses our tools to create bitstreams.

Sounds good to me!  But: only

If you (and they) didn't reveal anything about our tools, IP, etc.

And you and they never used our software to develop your tool.  Or to 
test our tool (both of which would be a violation of the agreement).  Or 
to reverse engineer our software or hardware.

Then we get bitstreams (which are covered by the use agreement from the 
person who used the generated XDL from your tool to push through our 
tool) which sells more of our silicon.

Again, I am no lawyer, so at this point, I am just blathering on with my 
own opinions.

Austin



Article: 96127
Subject: Re: Xilinx Legal
From: John Williams <jwilliams@itee.uq.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 08:42:03 +1000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
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!

Article: 96128
Subject: Re: Xilinx Legal
From: fpga_toys@yahoo.com
Date: 30 Jan 2006 14:45:42 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

cs_posting@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.


Article: 96129
Subject: Re: Xilinx Legal
From: Austin Lesea <austin@xilinx.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:46:25 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
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


Article: 96130
Subject: Re: XDL Tools wiki site
From: fpga_toys@yahoo.com
Date: 30 Jan 2006 14:55:53 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

Austin Lesea wrote:
> Nothing would prevent you from writing a parser that prepared a nice
> usage report for display, however.

True ... if the format were public outside ISE, and the related EULA
NDA.
So, in practice today, not possible ...

> Or, if you use an XDL that you create, and then put it back into a
> Xilinx tool, the same license restrictions apply.

See above, without a public description of XDL, then you have to use
ISE tools to obtain it ... info that is again EULA NDA locked.

> I am not sure, but I don't see any other uses of XDL covered by the
> agreement.  It is, after all, just an ASCII format of connections.

Just a proprietary ASCII format of connections until publicly
disclosed.

Once the format/syntax is publicly available. Then to use it you need
to
know the names of the Xilinx objects that you can instantiate, and what
the arguments are for those objects (pin names and functions).

Which again, is only documented inside ISE subject to EULA NDA terms.


Article: 96131
Subject: Re: XDL Tools wiki site
From: cs_posting@hotmail.com
Date: 30 Jan 2006 14:58:08 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Austin Lesea wrote:
> John,
>
> If you create a XDL from using Xilinx tools, then the license says that
> the XDL must be used to program a Xilinx device, and that you are
> prevented from doing any reverse engineering, disclosure of IP, etc.
>
> Nothing would prevent you from writing a parser that prepared a nice
> usage report for display, however.

Since you start out by contradicting yourself, it's really hard to
figure out what you mean.


Article: 96132
Subject: Re: XDL Tools wiki site
From: fpga_toys@yahoo.com
Date: 30 Jan 2006 15:05:43 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

Austin Lesea wrote:
> One case I see now is that you create a tool to convert something (like
> c) into XDL.  Then someone else uses our tools to create bitstreams.
>
> Sounds good to me!  But: only
>
> If you (and they) didn't reveal anything about our tools, IP, etc.

Without the equiv public data found in the XNF specification ... file
format
and object definitions ... it's not possible.


Article: 96133
Subject: Re: Xilinx Legal
From: cs_posting@hotmail.com
Date: 30 Jan 2006 15:21:27 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Austin Lesea wrote:

> Going from "using XDL" for some unspecified reason, to "open source" is
> a big step.  Too big.

For you perhaps, but open source code under a freedom-preserving
license is perhaps the most likely variety of tool that volunteers
might develop.  The other alternative, closed software developed by
those who hope to sell seats, and will license what they need from you,
seems more in your comfort zone to date.

> There is nothing "open source" about any of Xilinx's software.

That's not what we're talking about, though I seem to recall some
cygwin-ish files floating around in the install - but let's call that
off topic.

> Right now, the discussion has been about an ASCII representation of
> connections that Xilinx developed as a convenience (replaced an earlier
> format).

Which if half of your comments are to believed is too encumbered to be
of any use outside a private or closed source tool - or if the other
half are to be believed, is available and harmless.

> 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).

Yes, but someone else can take that parser and use it as a starting
point for something like reverse engineering.  Unless the license terms
_of the parser_ prevent that.  But if they do, then parser (despite not
being Xilinx software) is not a free and open tool.

> 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?

If it really talks the same XDL you do, then someone can use it as a
bridge between a new language and your silicon (which you would like)
or between your tools and someone else's silicon.  The later would
allegedly be a violation of your license terms, but not of the license
terms of the proposed XDL tool - unless the XDL tool is not a free and
open piece of software.

If the proposed XDL tool is not a free and open piece of software, then
some of the participants in this discussion aren't interested in
writing it.  We could have a whole other discussion about why, but the
obvious reason is that it's too big a project to be worthwhile without
input from many sources and the justification of many users.


Article: 96134
Subject: Re: Xilinx Legal
From: fpga_toys@yahoo.com
Date: 30 Jan 2006 15:26:32 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

Austin Lesea wrote:
> 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.

This is the companies right, no matter how much we object. There has
to be a business decision that open source is in the companies best
interests ... which is where talking about this and lobbying might be
of use.

> Right now, the discussion has been about an ASCII representation of
> connections that Xilinx developed as a convenience (replaced an earlier
> format).

Until a document shows up on the public web site, with equiv data to
the
XNF specifications ... file format and object definitions, it's a
closed
proprietary standard, that requires violating the ISE EULA NDA to make
public any use of it.

> 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* there were a public document like the XNF spec, this statement
would
be true.  Today it is false, as no one has been able to find such a
public
document yet.

> 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?

With a public XDL format and library objects document, this is exactly
what we hope for.


Article: 96135
Subject: Re: Xilinx Legal
From: cs_posting@hotmail.com
Date: 30 Jan 2006 15:28:41 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
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?


Article: 96136
Subject: Analog FPGA Project -- VIdeo Router
From: benn686@hotmail.com
Date: 30 Jan 2006 15:28:55 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I thought it might be a relatively fun and easy project to do a
audio/video (coax or rca) matrix that can take  any number of n inputs
and route them to any n ouputs (1 to 1, 1 to all, etc).

I know this can be done using circuitry, but what about Analog FPGAs?
Have analog FPGAs matured enough where something like this is feasible?
 Do they have enough resources to implement all the multiplexers needed/


Article: 96137
Subject: Re: Xilinx Legal
From: Larry Doolittle <ldoolitt@localhost.localdomain>
Date: 30 Jan 2006 15:35:28 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 2006-01-30, Austin Lesea <austin@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

Article: 96138
Subject: Re: Xilinx Legal
From: John Williams <jwilliams@itee.uq.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:37:25 +1000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
cs_posting@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?
> 

I don't know. Maybe it doesn't matter.  The purpose of "though shalt
only target Xilinx parts" is to keep Xilinx off your back.  If someone
reads your code and reimplements the XDL parser for Evil, instead of
Good, maybe it's Xilinx problem to pursue, and not yours?

John



Article: 96139
Subject: Re: XDL Tools wiki site
From: Austin Lesea <austin@xilinx.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:49:45 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
cs,

I see.  Seems we never even disclosed the basics of the XDL format. I 
had thought that we had disclosed its construction, and structure.

Well then.  Looks like XDL is off limits, too.

Now that we have that understood, perhaps we can retire this entire 
thread and move onto something else?

Austin


Article: 96140
Subject: Re: Xilinx Legal
From: ptkwt@aracnet.com (Phil Tomson)
Date: 30 Jan 2006 23:52:51 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
In article <1138660375.447864.74580@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 <cs_posting@hotmail.com> wrote:
>fpga_toys@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


Article: 96141
Subject: Re: Xilinx Legal
From: Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:55:21 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On a sunny day (Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:56:47 -0800) it happened Austin Lesea
<austin@xilinx.com> wrote in <drluif$3ls4@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




Article: 96142
Subject: Re: Xilinx Legal
From: ptkwt@aracnet.com (Phil Tomson)
Date: 31 Jan 2006 00:04:53 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
In article <drm501$3ls9@xco-news.xilinx.com>,
Austin Lesea  <austin@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

Article: 96143
Subject: Re: Xilinx Legal
From: ptkwt@aracnet.com (Phil Tomson)
Date: 31 Jan 2006 00:15:45 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
In article <newscache$3egxti$xu7$1@lbox.itee.uq.edu.au>,
John Williams  <jwilliams@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

Article: 96144
Subject: Re: Xilinx Legal
From: ptkwt@aracnet.com (Phil Tomson)
Date: 31 Jan 2006 00:19:08 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
In article <1138663721.351662.283480@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 <cs_posting@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



Article: 96145
Subject: Re: Xilinx Legal
From: John Williams <jwilliams@itee.uq.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:50:15 +1000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Phil Tomson wrote:

> In article <newscache$3egxti$xu7$1@lbox.itee.uq.edu.au>,
> John Williams  <jwilliams@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

Article: 96146
Subject: Re: Xilinx Legal
From: cs_posting@hotmail.com
Date: 30 Jan 2006 17:07:55 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
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.


Article: 96147
Subject: Re: Xilinx Legal
From: fpga_toys@yahoo.com
Date: 30 Jan 2006 17:38:53 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

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.


Article: 96148
Subject: Re: XDL Tools wiki site
From: fpga_toys@yahoo.com
Date: 30 Jan 2006 17:41:23 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

Austin Lesea wrote:
> I see.  Seems we never even disclosed the basics of the XDL format. I
> had thought that we had disclosed its construction, and structure.
>
> Well then.  Looks like XDL is off limits, too.
>
> Now that we have that understood, perhaps we can retire this entire
> thread and move onto something else?

Sure ... I think we have more than hashed this to death :(

It's probably better at this point to lobby it as a business decision
with
sales/marketing and real customers.


Article: 96149
Subject: power up reset question
From: "Wolf" <wolfendun1234-news@yahoo.com>
Date: 30 Jan 2006 17:47:30 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

Background: Spartan 3 FPGA, Xilinx 6.3 tools

I am currently having  a problem with what I think is a power up reset.
I have a fairly complicated design consistings of several state
machines and a controller. I can get this to work easily by either
downloading to the eeprom without powering off as well as simply
downloading the bit file over jtag. However, when I power off and on
the firmware no longer works. I know this particular board works with a
much simpler version of this bit file, and has no problems with
powering up.

Is the fact that my new design is more complicated allowing a power up
reset problem to come into focus because the older versions of this
were much simpler and not as prone to these types of problems? Is there
some way to put a counter on the spartan 3 and do a global reset with
it?

Tomorrow I think I will try to wire a hard reset onto the board but it
is going to be a pain, I hope someone else might have encountered and
solved a similar problem.

thanks,
wolf




Site Home   Archive Home   FAQ Home   How to search the Archive   How to Navigate the Archive   
Compare FPGA features and resources   

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2017
2018JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2018
2019JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2019
2020JanFebMarAprMay2020

Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Custom Search