On 11/25/06, Lourens Veen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 25 November 2006 02:15, Timothy Miller wrote:
> On 11/24/06, Jonathan J Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Back on this subject again huh?.
> >
> > This is really a can of worms.
> >
> > A definition like "Requires HDL", means that NOTHING designed out
> > of common chips could be called open hardware, only things designed
> > from the logic level up could be.
>
> Yes, "Requires HDL" is too narrow. This is why the GPL goes on about
> preferred forms, etc. You have to be able to let people use standard
> off the shelf chips, like RAMs and DVI transmitters, without needing
> their internal designs.
>
> But see, OGD1 is designed so that we're not reliant on a specific
> chip but rather, a standard interface. As long as something is
> replacable in perpetuity, it's not any sort of practical problem.
But you can't programme the FPGAs we use without using a proprietary
piece of software, since their internal structure isn't documented. The
PCB artwork is definitely open, but the entire product isn't. But where
is the limit? Do we want the HDL for the resistors too?
I guess we just make do with what we have, and as we go along, we
encourage more openness.
available parts. But what is commonly available? Discrete parts
certainly are, simple 74HC chips are, perhaps even an x86 CPU could be
considered commonly available, but I don't think that the FPGAs we use
fall into this category.
FPGAs are generic enough, I think. If you can't use one, you can use
another, with relatively minor mods to the HDL.
Perhaps this is where open standards compliant comes in? If there is a
full specification of the part, then it could in principle be replaced
by a newly designed, but completely compatible part.
On the other hand, that would make a board with only a single open
standard compliant chip on it open hardware if the board layout is
under an open licence, even though the board is only a minor part of
the product (if the chip is complex enough).
A number of companies have tried to claim that they have open source
drivers, only to be found to have overstated things a bit. If someone
claims open hardware, but they're trying to pull a fast one, they'll
get a lot of flak for it, and they won't get to use any of the OHF
logos.
Sometimes, there's a fine line between being as open as possible and
being as closed as possible while still claiming to be open hardware.
And intent is hard to figure out.
> Agreed.
Agreed, but to a point. We need a rigid, ambitious definition
of "completely open". We might add some lesser definitions to reward
people who are at least moving in the right direction. What we
definitely can not do is create a weak definition first, and then make
it stronger as time goes on. That would result in companies making
something open (according to our definition), and then being
told "that's not good enough anymore, we want more" repeatedly. We
can't do that.
Yup. We're going to have to be open-minded and fair, and it's going
to be hard. We'll have companies trying to pull a fast one, and we'll
have companies with their hands tied that will open everything they
legally can.
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
