[Arm-netbook] about Risc-V and Power,

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On 1/4/20, zap <zapper at disroot.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 01/03/2020 07:25 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> On 1/3/20, zap <zapper at disroot.org> wrote:
>>> Just to be clear, you cannot legally sell risc-v processors even if you
>>> remove the trademarks.
>> like any trademark, if you make no mention of the trademark, or any
>> claims of "compliance", you're probably ok.
>>
>> from the time i worked on samba-tng, you can claim *compatibility*
>> with something that is a pun or the *inversion* of a trademark.
>> "arcfour-compatible" rather than "RC4 compliant".
>>
>> etnaviv.
>>
>> v-sirc.
>>
>> if you say "v-sirc compatible" and you're ok.
> So to be clear, is it because it could be very dangerous to work on
> risc-v without their help.

no, not at all.  there's no need for "help".  and it's not "dangerous", either.

* RISC-V is Trademarked.
* therefore if you want to use the Trademark, you *must* respect the
requirements set by the Trademark Holder.
* if you do not want to use the Trademark in connection with your
product, you do *NOT* have to meet the requirements.

there is no "danger" here, nor a "need for help".

in addition:

* if the Trademark Holder acts in a persistently UNREASONABLE WAY,
they LOSE the Trademark.

>>> And, OpenPower can be made more secure and lightweight then Risc-V.
>> that's very difficult to say.  you start having to delve into what
>> "secure" means at both the architectural, ISA *and* design level.
>> "lightweight" is much easier to compare however would still take a
>> significant amount of time.
>>
>>
> Well said then. Lightweight is what I concern over more to be fair. I am
> sure they are both equally or close to equally secure though - the
> meltdown spectre crap. ;)

that's a micro-architectural design decision, not a fault of the ISA itself.

l.