On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 01:26:35 +0100 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Richard Wilbur richard.wilbur@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 10, 2018, at 13:37, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote: interestingly the bullet-points 3 and 5 are *actuallly legitimate concerns*. the RISC-V Foundation is over-controlled by UCB Berkeley,[0] via a structure that is similar to the failed Google Project Ara ("it's open as long as you sign our secret agreement and don't publish information we don't want you to").
Are you referring to "Design Assurance"(as 3) and "Security"(as 5)?
fragmentation risk and cost.
Seems like an advertisement specifically against risc-v by and for ARM.
indeed... one that that has been well-researched and partly has merit. other aspects definitely do not.
I'm sorry to hear about those terms on a project with any pretensions of being "open".
i know. i was... extremely optimistic and hopeful when i started hearing about RISC-V, particularly that it was intended to solve mny of the issues and mistakes made in RISC design over the past 30+ years.
however that quickly turned to shock, then puzzlement, and now i'm wondering where to go from here, as i learned over time that the UC B team behind RISC-V, although they have achieved absolutely fantastic things, are... unable to let go of control of the development process, shall we say.
it comes down basically to them being technically brilliant. sufficiently brilliant that they are unable to appreciate that other people may have very good reasons for wanting to do something quite differently from how they envisaged it should be done.
<snip>
I thought that riscv was based on "prior art" such that any license that restricts it would be untenable.
Assuming that faith in riscv is misplaced, what about Epiphany? The Parallela (FPGA) board in no longer developed, but the processor is still an OSS arch, right?
Thanks