Timothy Miller wrote: > > Typically, they use simulated annealing: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_annealing > > This derives from simpler "hill-climbing" techniques and is also > similar to genetic algorithms in some ways. > Yes, I remember you mentioned that simulated annealing applies to this problem previously. The algorithm is, as people can see from the link you make, very simple. I believe the biggest challenge will be to find good state transitions based on the somewhat complex structure of the FPGA. There may also be some heuristics we need to add to get good performance, but I'll need to have a closer look at it later. It's maybe a parenthetic for our immediate needs, but if we want OGD to be a long term product, I think this is something to consider. > > Their willingness to give us information may be influenced by what > we're able to offer them. For instance, if we developed GPL code that > synthesized for their products but told them that they (alone) could > freely derive proprietary products from it, they might bite. They'd > save whatever royalties they'd been paying to whoever developed the > internals of ISE (which is probably not them). > My idea of this would be give them dual license on the chip-specific parts (.bit output and maybe Icarus add-ons for part-recognition?), and to allow them to bundle the other GPL parts with proprietary software including linking their own software against the GPL libraries, if they need to. (They are already allowed to sell any GPL software as long as they include reasonable means to get the source, GPL-3 is even better on this point if I recall corretly.)
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
