On 1/4/20, zap <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 01/03/2020 07:25 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: >> On 1/3/20, zap <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Just to be clear, you cannot legally sell risc-v processors even if you >>> remove the trademarks. >> like any trademark, if you make no mention of the trademark, or any >> claims of "compliance", you're probably ok. >> >> from the time i worked on samba-tng, you can claim *compatibility* >> with something that is a pun or the *inversion* of a trademark. >> "arcfour-compatible" rather than "RC4 compliant". >> >> etnaviv. >> >> v-sirc. >> >> if you say "v-sirc compatible" and you're ok. > So to be clear, is it because it could be very dangerous to work on > risc-v without their help.
no, not at all. there's no need for "help". and it's not "dangerous", either. * RISC-V is Trademarked. * therefore if you want to use the Trademark, you *must* respect the requirements set by the Trademark Holder. * if you do not want to use the Trademark in connection with your product, you do *NOT* have to meet the requirements. there is no "danger" here, nor a "need for help". in addition: * if the Trademark Holder acts in a persistently UNREASONABLE WAY, they LOSE the Trademark. >>> And, OpenPower can be made more secure and lightweight then Risc-V. >> that's very difficult to say. you start having to delve into what >> "secure" means at both the architectural, ISA *and* design level. >> "lightweight" is much easier to compare however would still take a >> significant amount of time. >> >> > Well said then. Lightweight is what I concern over more to be fair. I am > sure they are both equally or close to equally secure though - the > meltdown spectre crap. ;) that's a micro-architectural design decision, not a fault of the ISA itself. l. _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list [email protected] http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to [email protected]
