JTD, thanks for taking out some time to write that mail, but I'm afraid to say that I couldn't understand a word of the following paragraph (which I is the crux of your argument). Could you please try explaining it with a different approach?
Consider a VHDL file that describes a PCI /AGP/USB/other device. > Copyright serves the purpose of preventing copying or creating > derivative works of this file. Any number of permutations of VHDL > elements are likely to produce the same end result silicon (perhaps > less effeciently). Now adding a driver to control this piece of VHDL > code manifested in some silicon does not in anyway change the fact > that one could recreate the same functionality with different VHDL + > driver or only silicon without vhdl or only software on a DSP / > processor or any number of permutation combinations. Why? because the > vhdl is a description which tells the interpreter to produce silicon > based on a silicon vendors library description of vhdl circuit > elements. The resulting silicon will differ drastically from one > silicon vendor to another. Similiarly a piece of software code will > produce a different set of binaries depending on libraries created > for a particular expression of silicon + compiler. Saurabh. -- http://nandz.blogspot.com http://foodieforlife.blogspot.com -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
