We're not going to BUILD an FPGA. We'd just like to TARGET one. So whatever hardware license they use doesn't matter. We don't care about which free software license is applied to software we USE, but we do prefer MIT licenses on software we're going to RELEASE.
On 2/11/08, Vinicius Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 7, 2008 9:40 AM, Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is purely academic, not targeting a real architecture, but still... > > probably a very useful starting point if anybody is seriously > > considering pursuing open source FPGA implementation tools. > > > > > > VPR 5.0: Modernized FPGA Architecture, Design and CAD > > > > Jason Luu, Peter Jamieson, Ian Kuon, Jonathan Rose > > > [snip] > > Does this mean that VPR 5.0 will have licensing terms different from > what is stated in: > http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~vaughn/vpr/terms.html ? Would be great, > current versions' license is of no use to Traversal (and therefor to > the OpenHardware community to a certain extent). > _______________________________________________ > Open-graphics mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics > List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com) > -- Timothy Normand Miller http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~millerti Open Graphics Project _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
