Re: Xilinx Legal

In article <drm501$3ls9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Austin Lesea <austin@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Xilinx Legal
    ... > There is nothing "open source" about any of Xilinx's software. ... > format). ... > a nice report from the XDL file (noted in the comments on XDL in our ...
    (comp.arch.fpga)
  • So what happened to JHDLBits?
    ... working XDL might just be the next best thing. ... But then someone brought up the fate of JHDLBits: ... someone succeeded in developing an open source ecosystem of tools built around ... An Open-Source Model for FPGA Design Automation ...
    (comp.arch.fpga)
  • Re: Xilinx Legal
    ... >> I can not personally broker a deal for an open source project, ... I would not accept the personal liability should Xilinx think I ... XDL to target Xilinx parts will not violate the EULA. ...
    (comp.arch.fpga)
  • Re: So Xilinx, is XDL and related libraries an available open source interface?
    ... > than to try to shoehorn XDL into another vendor's tool flow? ... There really isn't much reason to restrict an open source synthesis ... Since the Xilinx license is restrictive to Xilinx ...
    (comp.arch.fpga)
  • Re: So what happened to JHDLBits?
    ... >Phil Tomson wrote: ... working XDL might just be the next best thing. ... >> But then someone brought up the fate of JHDLBits: ... >> someone succeeded in developing an open source ecosystem of tools built around ...
    (comp.arch.fpga)