Not to be an annoyance, but you seem to have been so busy that you missed my reply and I do think it was important.
Thanks. On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 09:18:46 -0400 David Niklas <do...@mail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 01:26:35 +0100 > Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <l...@lkcl.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Richard Wilbur > > <richard.wil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> On Jul 10, 2018, at 13:37, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton > > >> <l...@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 _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk