[Arm-netbook] riscv-basics.com

[David Niklas]

Not to be an annoyance, but you seem to have been so busy that you missed
my reply and I do think it was important.

Thanks.

On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 09:18:46 -0400
David Niklas <doark at mail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 01:26:35 +0100
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Richard Wilbur
> > <richard.wilbur at gmail.com> wrote:
> >   
> > >> On Jul 10, 2018, at 13:37, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
> > >> <lkcl at lkcl.net> wrote: interestingly the bullet-points 3 and 5 are
> > >> *actuallly legitimate concerns*.  the RISC-V Foundation is
> > >> over-controlled by UCB Berkeley,[0] via a structure that is similar
> > >> to the failed Google Project Ara ("it's open as long as you sign
> > >> our secret agreement and don't publish information we don't want
> > >> you to").    
> > >
> > > Are you referring to "Design Assurance"(as 3) and "Security"(as
> > > 5)?    
> > 
> >  fragmentation risk and cost.
> >   
> > > Seems like an advertisement specifically against risc-v by and for
> > > ARM.    
> > 
> >  indeed... one that that has been well-researched and partly has
> > merit.  other aspects definitely do not.
> >   
> > > I'm sorry to hear about those terms on a project with any
> > > pretensions of being "open".    
> > 
> >  i know.  i was... extremely optimistic and hopeful when i started
> > hearing about RISC-V, particularly that it was intended to solve mny
> > of the issues and mistakes made in RISC design over the past 30+
> > years.
> > 
> >  however that quickly turned to shock, then puzzlement, and now i'm
> > wondering where to go from here, as i learned over time that the UC B
> > team behind RISC-V, although they have achieved absolutely fantastic
> > things, are... unable to let go of control of the development process,
> > shall we say.
> > 
> >  it comes down basically to them being technically brilliant.
> > sufficiently brilliant that they are unable to appreciate that other
> > people may have very good reasons for wanting to do something quite
> > differently from how they envisaged it should be done.
> >   
> <snip>
> 
> I thought that riscv was based on "prior art" such that any license that
> restricts it would be untenable.
> 
> Assuming that faith in riscv is misplaced, what about Epiphany? The
> Parallela (FPGA) board in no longer developed, but the processor is
> still an OSS arch, right?
> 
> Thanks