A very interesting piece of reading. I'll be honest and say that I have
nothing to add or edit. Part of the reason being that I don't have
enough experience or any brilliant ideas to contribute with. What I do
have though, is an associate membership with the FSF. And what I could
do then, is post a link to this whitepaper on their "associate members
messageboard" and see if anyone in there wants to comment on it. I'm
sure this project is something people at the FSF would love to see
succeed as well :)
If anyone has good ideas on how to do this, it ought to be them... ;)
- Palle Raabjerg
Timothy Miller wrote:
>Release early, release often, they say. Same goes for documents,
>sometimes. I'm working on an open letter to publish on the topic of
>open-sourcing the RTL. I've borrowed heavily from everyone who has
>contributed to the conversation, usually without attribution (I hope
>you don't mind). I would like to invite editorial comments. It's an
>early draft, so it's poorly written and poorly structured. Feel free
>to suggest rearrangements, edits, rewrites, additions, deletions,
>citations, etc.
>
>
>
>Open Source Hardware? How do you do it?
>
>
>I've been a user of Free Software since 1995. Compared to the
>alternatives, it can sometimes be challenging, but it's also
>incredibly liberating to not be tied down to a single faceless,
>impenetrable vendor. Over the time that I have used Free Software, I
>have felt an ever-increasing desire to give something back, something
>that others can benefit from, the same way that I have benefited from
>their work.
>
>I've been developing software a lot longer than hardware, but my heart
>has always been in chip design. It's what I enjoy the most. It is
>this interest that I felt would be the best thing to use to give back
>to the community. Unfortunately, developing and sharing hardware is
>not the same as for software. Hardware often requires expensive
>proprietary tools to synthesize ("compile"), and it can cost $millions
>to manufacture an ASIC. If you release the source code to a piece of
>software, anyone with a PC and a compiler can use it. Releasing the
>logic diagrams (RTL) for a piece of hardware is hardly useful to
>anyone, and getting someone to manufacture it can be an uphill battle.
>
>It has been my desire for a very long time to have readily-available
>hardware that "just works" with Free Software. So far, it has been
>challenging to find that sort of hardware. In my area of expertise,
>graphics, the vendors have been reluctantly willing, in the past, to
>release limited specifications so that hackers could support their
>products. But more recently, those vendors have started to close
>their doors. At the same time that they have started to pay more
>attention to Linux, they have also pulled their support for Free
>Software in general by releasing proprietary drivers that are often
>buggy and work with limited versions of the Linux kernel, never mind
>BSD or anything else. And good luck trying to get one of those chips
>to work with a PowerPC-based system.
>
>My primary goal with the Open Graphics Project (OGP) is not, as you
>might think, to "share." My goal is to ENABLE sharing. Consider the
>sorts of "open hardware" that are available right now. Opencores.org
>has a lot of really cool designs available for download, which you can
>incorporate into your own chip designs. But have you noticed ready
>adoption of those designs? I'm sure they've ended up in plenty of
>commercial products, although it's impossible to say for sure. But
>you can't just download, compile, and use any of those designs without
>a significant monetary expenditure. If I were to take the same
>approach to the OGP, then our design would end up just like all the
>rest: A neat design that you can download from a web site. But
>that's not what I want. I want a real piece of hardware that I can
>buy, put into my computer, and USE.
>
>My "do what it takes to get it done" attitude has generated a lot of
>controversy with Free Software purists. In order to function in this
>business environment, certain traditional approaches must,
>unfortunately, be followed. In order to get it done, I have to
>develop a business model that is both sustainable and attractive to
>investors. There are very difficult challenges to overcome. Up to
>this point, the situation with hardware is that hackers have had to
>beg vendors for documentation; what I find ironic is that my offer to
>freely give away documentation, plus a lot more, has been met with
>complaints that it's not good enough. Go figure.
>
>But before I go on, I want to make something perfectly clear: I WANT
>to share. The concepts behind Free Software don't all apply well to
>hardware, but in my mind, the ideal situation is one where every last
>bit of this design can be developed, completely out in the open. The
>benefits include faster development time and a better quality product,
>due to the involvement of "many eyes." This kind of development model
>works. The problem I'm faced with is an issue of PRODUCTION.
>
>Already, most of this project is freely published, much more than for
>any other product I've encountered. Naturally, all software drivers,
>including firmware, will be released under FOSS licenses. For these,
>we'll use mostly BSD and MIT license so that there is no restriction
>on how those drivers can be ported. Even the VGA BIOS and firmware
>for other platforms are open source. In order for hackers to develop
>these drivers, they'll have to know the hardware in intimate detail,
>and we are providing them with all the tools we need.
>English-language specs have been published and are continuing to be
>published. In addition, a complete, functional C-language model of
>the 3D rendering engine has been published, and it describes the math
>and logic in exact detail. And as the hardware is developed and
>decisions are made, the model is being updated to reflect those design
>decisions. Software developers who want to use our hardware are
>wanting for nothing.
>
>Regardless of the practicality of releasing or not releasing the RTL,
>this has generated a lot of controversy. Many seem to not understand
>what they think we're not giving them, and many that do understand are
>unfamiliar with the challenges of the business world. There is a
>recent case where someone thought they could get away with combining
>free and non-free software, and it's been a big deal in the news. But
>it's not fair to compare us to then, because there is a clear barrier
>between hardware and software. At the same time, I can understand the
>confusion, and for that matter, as I say, I really want to have the
>hardware open source, just for idealogical reasons. Do not be
>confused. I want to release the RTL under an open source license.
>But sound business judgment tells me that I cannot.
>
>Sound business judgment aside, I am making a call out to everyone who
>has useful ideas to help make everyone happy: Help me solve the
>problems with open sourcing the hardware so that I CAN open source the
>hardware without making it impossible to manufacture.
>
>There are numerous benefits to developing the design under a GPL
>license, and here are just a few:
>Faster development.
>Many more eyes to find and fix problems.
>Students and hobbyists can learn from it and use it in their own designs.
>Software developers can identify discrepancies between the English
>spec and the RTL and use that to write better drivers, work around
>hardware bug, etc.
>A new business model will be spawned that benefits everyone.
>
>Sounds great, but let's now consider the challenges with doing this.
>
>As you know, hardware development costs a lot of money. This will
>involve a significant up-front cost to myself, my family, my partners,
>their families, and many skeptical investors. This is a huge risk,
>and anyone getting involved is going to want to ensure that they
>recoup their investment. And investors, not being charities, are also
>going to want to make significant gains as well. Production of this
>design cannot be distributed; a lot of money has to be put into a very
>small place, and it must be organized, which means we need to have a
>business, and that business, like all others, must be profitable in
>order to survive and live on to develop more products that Free
>Software users want to have.
>
>Many of us expect that the OGP will be a popular product line. It
>solves a lot of problems with hardware availability for users of Free
>Software. We believe this, and it's important for our investors to
>believe it too. Going on that assumption, there is an absolute
>guarantee that some other company is going to want to copy our design.
> Releasing the RTL under GPL makes it perfectly legal for them to do
>this. Moreover, anyone who DOES copy the design is likely to be
>someone who can do it more economically than we can. Otherwise, they
>wouldn't bother. It's more economical for them to do it, because the
>development was done for them, for free, and they're a big company
>with lots of money and pre-existing relationships with fab houses that
>will give them a better deal. I'm not worried about another start-up
>competing with us—I'm worried about "evil big company" cutting us off
>at the knees. And more important than my fears are those of my
>investors who will have already seen this sort of thing happen many
>times. Notice how Tivo is struggling compared to those who came
>after.
>
>(A corollary to the above argument is that if the design is NOT
>popular, then it's junk and you have no interest in seeing the RTL
>anyway.)
>
>Most people are highly cost-conscious, so if they can get our board
>for $120 or the other guy's board for $50, whom do you think the buyer
>is going to choose? The result: I can't make any sales, I can't
>recoup the investments, and I go out of business.
>
>To quote Mr_Z, who commented on an earlier KernelTrap article, "If two
>or more guys build essentially the same ASIC, the one with the lower
>manufacturing overhead and better distribution channels wins. The
>startup that wrote the VHDL is unlikely to be that candidate, by
>virtue of being a startup."
>
>Having the design copied is a short-term advantage to the community.
>But if I'm put out of business by it, and I cost my investors
>$millions in losses, my ability to continue future development is
>destroyed. I'm not trying to get rich here; my goal is to survive and
>sustain my ability to develop hardware for this growing industry. I'm
>looking into the far future and trying to make sure that I am around
>to perpetually develop new hardware that meets the needs of those who
>value Free Software.
>
>In a free market, competition is a good thing. Monopolies get
>complacent, and the quality of their products declines. I love
>capitalism, and I love to see AMD and Intel fight tooth-and-nail for
>the same business, because the result is that they both produce
>increasingly better products. A business with a big market and a
>sustainable product line needs competition. But we, those who are
>developing hardware for the OGP, are not an existing business. We are
>a start-up. We need absolutely every competitive advantage we can
>get, so that we don't go out of business in the first year, like so
>many other start-ups. It's one thing for us to compete with another
>company who has to develop their own IP. It's entirely another to
>compete against another company that can drastically cut costs by
>using our own IP against us. Most importantly, our investors know all
>this, and they'll require that we insulate against it. A start-up has
>to be rock solid, otherwise, VCs and angel investors won't give you a
>second look.
>
>This is pure psychology. It's POSSIBLE that no one will copy the
>design and under-cut us. But hope doesn't sustain a business.
>Regardless of the likelihood, investors are terribly afraid of
>anything that could hurt their investment. They require that problems
>of this sort of completely prevented. Keep in mind that, regardless
>of what protections patents, copyrights, and trademarks can provide,
>when investors see that you're "giving away" something, even protected
>by a strong license, they completely discount it as having any value.
>The RTL is the core of our business, so if we "give it away," the core
>of our business has no value. You can argue all you want about how
>little of a risk this is, but you won't change the minds of any
>investors.
>
>Here are some things we need to be able to do with our IP as a business:
>Sell chips for embedded systems
>Sell boards in the retail market
>License IP to those who want to combine our design with theirs
>Have a competitive advantage against other companies
>Get enough income to make it our "day job"
>Get enough income to be able to develop future products
>Ensure wide-spread adoption of our products so that the business can grow
>Encourage the development of open source drivers
>
>Note that something we're not necessarily trying to ensure is
>indefinite revenue from old products. If someone wants it supported
>for 20 years, they'll buy a support contract separately from any
>hardware they purchase. Companies that don't need to release new
>products get stale. We have to continue to innovate anyway, so losing
>revenue potential from a 1-year-old product, by GPL'ing the RTL, only
>means that we can safely EOL a product without orphaning customers who
>want to continue using it. This just gives us one more reason to
>continue to grow, improve, and innovate.
>
>Since this is an open call for ideas, this is obviously not a complete
>list, but here are some solutions that I and others have come up with
>to that might solve our problem or inspire you to come up with better
>solutions:
>Develop a non-GPL license that allows everyone access to the RTL, but
>prohibits anyone but my company from profiting from it without a
>license.
>Have the community "buy out" the RTL up front. This way, the design
>can be developed in the open from the beginning, and we completely
>eliminate all financial risk.
>Require individuals who want to see the RTL to pay a fee and sign
>non-disclosure agreements.
>Be patient. We intend to release the RTL under GPL at some future
>point ANYWAY. That point will be a function of production schedule and
>profitability, and we also need to ensure a cashflow that allows us to
>develop future products. The RTL can be held in escrow to ensure that
>we uphold our part of the bargain.
>
>Something important to note: Once something's made into a chip, it's
>incredibly difficult and expensive to distinguish between the case
>where someone simply made their own compatible design and the case
>where someone illegally misappropriated our IP. This problem also
>must be insulated against. Being ripped of, while being unable to
>afford the technical and legal expenses to prove it could be deadly.
>
>The bottom line is this:
>On the one hand, I am dedicated to making a sustainable business model
>that can meet people's needs.
>On the other hand, I have people pushing me to do things that will
>dilute any sort of "value-add" I can provide.
>Obviously, there's a conflict, so I am putting forth a challenge to
>those who are demanding open source RTL: Find me a solution that
>allows me to make a sustainable business model AND meets your need to
>see this RTL that you so desperately desire.
>
>You, as a consumer, want what is best for the community. What would
>be the best thing to do here? Consider, just for a moment, the idea
>that making the RTL available under an open source license (right
>away) may not be the best thing for the community in the long term.
>
>And for those of you who would try to tell me that I am wrong in my
>assumptions about business, please show me your business credentials
>first. And to those who offer complaints but no solutions, please
>just keep them to yourselves. I'm dedicated to making something WORK
>here, so either help or get out of the way. And make sure that what
>you suggest is not something that will sacrifice my ability to sustain
>a business, because if it does, this RTL that you so desperately want
>won't even come to exist.
>
>To add to this, I would like to quote one of our list members, Patrick
>McNamara, who said, "Not opening the RTL immediately will piss off
>some people, and they will complain loudly. It doesn't matter a bit
>to them or their families' livelihood whether this venture succeeds.
>When that changes, they are allowed to complain."
>
>So, now, it's time to exhaust all possible avenues to open source this
>design and find an solution agreeable to all, so that I can stop
>wasting my time dealing with political issues and get back to work.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Open-graphics mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
>List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
>
>.
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
