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.
hmm... okay. I must've gotten confused then. I will wait to see your plans and whether you plan to make your own risc-v or openpower processor then.
I wish you the best on this,
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.
Oh, okay. I wonder how much the softcore's use in watts.
https://openpowerfoundation.org/openpower-summit-north-america-2019-introduc...