I've been kinda buried, so there are some discussions I've neglected. For instance, I agree that the main page should start with some kind of brief manifesto. Why are we where? What do we want to do? What to we stand for?
Secondly, I'm thinking about releases. I don't want to just one big release. We have a number of logic cores that can be useful independently. Things that we could turn into tarball releases include: - A highly programmable video controller - A PCI target that can run at 66MHz or faster - A compact harvard-arch microcontroller (HQ) - A DDR memory controller - Arbitration logic for multiple agents to access one memory controller - A set of syncronous and asyncronous fifos, tuned for different logic utilizations and speeds - A VGA text mode emulator that runs on HQ - A VGA BIOS - An SPI PROM controller - Logic to program a Xilinx FPGA from an SPI PROM - Logic to control DVI encoders and DACs We should have a library of these things with version numbers and such. Releasing them under GPL will encourage Free hardware designs and make life easier for those who want to develop Free hardware designs. I don't presume to replace or compete with OpenCores but to add more to the community they represent. I get a bit off-topic here.... then back on topic... I have noted that it's common practice to call logic blocks "IP cores". I'm used to it, so I don't think about it too much, that it contains the term "intellectual property." I'm actually in favor of patents for truly novel inventions, especially ones that took enormous effort and/or ingenuity to develop. Same goes for copyright. Never would I side with the MPAA/RIAA, especially regarding their litigation tactics. On the other hand, I appreciate the tremendous creativity and work that goes into creating a fantastic movie or a highly complex piece of software and how important it is to recoup the expense put into development. That being said, patent and copyright terms are much too long, fair use laws are not liberal enough, and some things just shouldn't be patented. These restrictions while allegedly good for the holder of the IP, more often than not, stifle creativity for everyone else. (I like the iPhone's UI, but the Blackberry Storm has a clever "click screen" innovation. Patents will make sure that the best ideas of each will never end up in the same device, especially not a Free one, and that sucks for the rest of us.) I agree with the general assertion of the FSF that you can't really OWN an idea. But you can be credited with one, and it isn't always bad to respect someone's wish to maintain temporarily enhanced control over how their idea is used so they can make a living at coming up with ideas. Some have said that copylefting is ironic because it uses copyright law against itself. I think about it a little differently. Copylefting puts power into the hands of the innovator, giving them enhanced control over their work. (In this case, the control is that they can ensure that their work remains Free.) The difference is that it has the added benefit of adding to the community immediately and directly, empowering everyone by encouraging community-owned derivative works. The problem with non-Free software is that, unlike a song or a book, where the end product is also the work that you can directly learn from, source code is a critical piece of the puzzle, missing from proprietary software. In digital form (especially), a book or a song can be hacked up and edited; this is much more difficult with binary object code. This is where the FSF's moral issue comes into play. Proprietary software takes away people's fundamental rights to control their own lives and make full use of what they possess. Imagine being legally barred from repairing your own car. Like the FSF, I think you should be able to charge money for your work, but at the same time, the person you're charging should also have the right to fix, enhance, and otherwise make greater use of the software than what you had in mind when you wrote it. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a prime example of this. It's expensive, thereby keeping a major contributor to the Free Software community in business. But it's still Free Software, allowing for the existence of CentOS, which benefits us by providing a binary-compatible zero-cost version but also helps Red Hat by alleviating them of the burden of supporting the zero-cost version and further encouraging the use of RHEL in enterprise installations. It's copyright that keeps you from downloading RHEL for zero-cost. It's copyleft that lets someone remove the trademarks and release it as CentOS, and it's copyleft that lets you fix something broken in RHEL without relying on them to do it for you. Anyhow, back on topic. We should come up with a name to replace "IP core". But we need to ensure that this name is not ambiguous and that it is recognizable as being synonymous to someone who is used to the term "IP core". Starting places are things like "logic block" and "logic core", but I don't think those are good enough. -- 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)
