[Arm-netbook] riscv-basics.com

[David Niklas]

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