So Xilinx, is XDL and related libraries an available open source interface?

Peter Alfke wrote:
> So here we have an anonymous poster challenge a fairly big corporation
> in an open forum to make a "definative" (sic!) legal statement about a
> complex issue.
> How naive can anybody be?
> If he really wants to achieve any change, he definitely goes about it
> the wrong way.
> This open-loop bitching is unproductive and wasteful, not even
> entertaining.
> Mr Anonymous Toy just enjoys ranting, and will never stop. (See other
> threads)
> Let's ignore him, his position is at the far-out fringe.
> Enough said.
> Peter Alfke, speaking for himself.

You know Peter ... I've tried very hard to avoid the very same
unprofessional BS that you and other posters here frequently resort to
in the form of direct personal attacks. Xilinx must be very very proud
of that behavior, even if you try to hide behind the "speaking for
himself." But unless you expecially like that form of abuse, it's best
to cease it, as everyone will take note that is how to be pissy with
you by example.

As far as your anonymous rants, live with it. I've actually told
everyone who I am, and it's not that difficult to figure it out, except
for some of the most clueless here. Over half of the posters to this
forum do not use their full legal names with company affiliation and
addresses to clearly identify who they are, who they work for, and
where they are located. The handles for GEO, dp, rickman, John H, Tim,
and scores of others are equally annoymous, and perfectly acceptable by
all usenet standards to post and particpate here -- and have been for
the 25 years I've participated in usenet forums. So get used to it.

Get a clue ... this has been a very productive discussion about the
very restrictive Xilinx IP Licensing, and just how many of your
customers do not have a clue about what Xilinx expects in protecting
that IP. It's clear that even after this discussion, that the
miss-information of a number of respected posters is likely to be
remembered for a very long time. What went wrong with it was the
failure to get clear and concise answers from Xilinx, which you seem
mockingly proud of in your rant above.

Especially since the Xilinx staff failed to be direct and clear about
all the issues. When Xilinx staff are unable to clearly and
definatively state that the Xilinx license clearly is incompatable with
all accepted open sources licenses, then I think Xilinx Legal needs to
set you guys down and have a long training session.

When you mockingly are proud that Xilinx staff can not answer such a
direct questions, then maybe Xilinx needs to consider more than just
training issues.

Certainly, mixing Xilinx IP with open source under BSD or GPL is
strictly forbidden.

Things like the JHDLBits problem occur as the direct lack of training
and initiative on the part of Xilinx staffers to recognize and
intervine early when a customer or intern gets off the path set by
Xilinx Legal department. That is a Xilinx internal problem, that
somebody really needs to fix. Your managment should be utterly ashamed
that I have to press the issue and fend off dozens of clearly WRONG
posts that XDL is an open interface and should be used for open source
development.

When Ray, and others, in this forum suggest that XDL can be mixed with
open source it should be a Xilinx person stepping up and quickly
correcting the matter to avoid another JHDLBits public relations
blunder. This whole thread is a public relations blunder that clear
concise posts from Xilinx staff could have stopped long ago by being
open and direct. And you dare mock this when it's litterially your
fault?

If Xilinx can not articulate it's own legal policy clearly in forums
like this, then Xilinx has a severe problem that it's legal department
and board of directors need to address in regard to staffing
responsibilities.

It's totally and utterly clueless to hide behind ignorance regarding IP
and licensing.

I wonder just how many Xilinx developers lack the training to undersand
what is LGPL and what is pure open source .... and how many Xilinx
product files are contaminated with open sources. And how many of your
3rd party developers have Xilinx proprietary information comingled with
open source?

I wonder how many of your customers are writing XDL code using open
source code segments and libraries that are not LGPL licensed?

Do you even have a clue what this really means?  If not, how do you
expect to discuss this matter with your developers to make sure both
Xilinx and open source license are not violated.

The whole issue is a direct result of the systematic failure of Xilinx
to openly and directly answer questions and provide full and complete
information. That you dare to mock that, is utterly clueless.

John

Peter Alfke <peter@xilinx.com> wrote:

> So here we have an anonymous poster challenge a fairly big corporation
> in an open forum to make a "definative" (sic!) legal statement about a
> complex issue.

As far as I can tell, he's not so much `challenging' as explaining his
position. He is afraid that he will get burned by legalities if he uses
XDL, and explains the assurances that he needs. What's wrong with that?
His position may sound paranoid, but considering the silly lawsuits that
there have been in the past, I can't say I blame him. There is a reason
that everyone here keeps claiming IANAL. Also, the JHDLBits affair seems
to have scared him. His side of the story does sound scary.


> How naive can anybody be?

Perhaps he is naive, but building your software on assurances from
people in an open forum, no matter how well-intentioned, is also bloody
naive.

Personally I think his fears about the license, apart from the `Xilinx
only' clause, are unfounded, and I hope that when he calms down a bit
he'll read the licenses again, and see that. His software does sound
interesting.

> If he really wants to achieve any change, he definitely goes about it
> the wrong way.

Well, with that I have to agree. He could make his point a little less
forcefully, and be a lot more effective. His `giving back to the
community' claim is also a bit extreme.

fpga_toys@yahoo.com wrote:
>  I've actually told
> everyone who I am, and it's not that difficult to figure it out, 

I can't find any reference to you, so who are you then.

Ed

In article <1138316309.314750.42980@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
 <fpga_toys@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Take Phil's project for example. The base license for Ruby is GPL,
>which
>means that he will have to be very careful to keep Ruby and Ruby
>libraries
>completely separate from anything that contains IP from XDL.  If he is
>careful, he might even be able to do that. If he is not and ends up
>with
>a blended license derivative work, then one or both licenses are
>violated.

Actually, I think it would be difficult to get Ruby and it's libraries mixed up 
with the project code.  The only way I can imagine that would happen is if we 
decided to embed Ruby into C code - I really don't forsee that.  The scenario 
you describe is not only easy to avoid, it would be difficult to create.

There's the Ruby interpreter (yes, it's GPL, but it's also dual licensed with a
much more liberal license from Matz which says "do what ye will with it", but I
digress) and libraries (mostly GPL, maybe some BSD depending on which you use).
There's our project code which would happen to be written in Ruby (though,
that's not written in stone at this point, maybe it would be C or Haskell...).
The Ruby interpreter merely runs our Ruby code.  There is no inclusion of the
Ruby interpreter code (written in C) with our project code _unless_ we were to
embed Ruby (and again, I really don't forsee doing that).  The Ruby 
interpretter is a totally seperate entity that would just happen to run our 
code.

>What is certain, is that he could never distribute the XDL portions
>publicly
>as open source, and would have to have a very long talk with Xilinx
>Legal
>and his own lawyer to carefully spell out distribution rights of the
>derived
>work. A C&D order is the least of your worries if there is a miss-step.
>The
>real fear is that they file for damages and legal costs, that literally
>could
>ruin the rest of your life since a Chapter 7 these days is harder to
>get
>without paying some or all your liabilities in such a judgement.
>
>I don't think it's personally worth the risk, expecially for an open
>source
>project.
>

The worst case scenario as I see it is that Xilinx changes their mind on XDL 
and decides they don't want 3rd party tools built around it.  They send a C&D 
and the code is pulled.  Yes, people would be upset, however, It doesn't seem 
to be something that would lead to a monetary judgement if the C&D is complied 
with.  I don't believe that any of the JHDLBits people had legal judgements 
against them; have you heard differently?

Phil

Phil Tomson wrote:
> The worst case scenario as I see it is that Xilinx changes their mind on XDL 
> and decides they don't want 3rd party tools built around it.  They send a C&D 
> and the code is pulled.  Yes, people would be upset, however, It doesn't seem 
> to be something that would lead to a monetary judgement if the C&D is complied 
> with.  I don't believe that any of the JHDLBits people had legal judgements 
> against them; have you heard differently?

As I stated earlier I don't think that the XDL format has any
protectable elements under US copyright law, but I am not a Lawyer.
I also don't believe that Xilinx has any interest in keeping the
format "closed" especially since the format is specific to Xilinx
devices and it uses our naming conventions which would be very
awkward to use for any non-Xilinx device.

My earlier statement about "use for Xilinx only devices" was intended to
reference the use of the NCD2XDL and XDL2NCD software that is included
in ISE 8.1i which would be covered under the EULA.  I believe that one
of the other threads mentioned using our synthesizer (XST) to generate LUTs
and then to take the output of this through XDL and then to a non-Xilinx
device through some translator.  This would be excluded by our EULA. However
using FpgaC or Ruby (??) to generate an XDL netlist and then somehow getting
this into a non-Xilinx device without using any ISE 8.1i software should be
fine.

If you are planning to use this in your project and want an official
confirmation that we wouldn't pull the rug out from under you at
a future date you should contact our legal department and ask them
for a permission to do so.  We'll probably want the usual "NO WARRANTY"
stuff, but I highly doubt that it will be a problem and it should be
taken care of in a short amount of time.

Ed McGettigan
--
Xilinx Inc.

Ed McGettigan wrote:
> As I stated earlier I don't think that the XDL format has any
> protectable elements under US copyright law, but I am not a Lawyer.
> I also don't believe that Xilinx has any interest in keeping the
> format "closed" especially since the format is specific to Xilinx
> devices and it uses our naming conventions which would be very
> awkward to use for any non-Xilinx device.
> 
> My earlier statement about "use for Xilinx only devices" was intended to
> reference the use of the NCD2XDL and XDL2NCD software that is included
> in ISE 8.1i which would be covered under the EULA.  I believe that one
> of the other threads mentioned using our synthesizer (XST) to generate LUTs
> and then to take the output of this through XDL and then to a non-Xilinx
> device through some translator.  This would be excluded by our EULA. 
> However
> using FpgaC or Ruby (??) to generate an XDL netlist and then somehow 
> getting
> this into a non-Xilinx device without using any ISE 8.1i software should be
> fine.
> 
> If you are planning to use this in your project and want an official
> confirmation that we wouldn't pull the rug out from under you at
> a future date you should contact our legal department and ask them
> for a permission to do so.  We'll probably want the usual "NO WARRANTY"
> stuff, but I highly doubt that it will be a problem and it should be
> taken care of in a short amount of time.
> 
> Ed McGettigan
> -- 
> Xilinx Inc.

Thank you Ed for clearing this up.  It is basically what I've been 
trying to say.

In the following I talk about german law, but AFAIK US law leads to
similar conclusions.

fpga_toys@yahoo.com schrieb:
> Ed McGettigan wrote:
> 
>>I believe that it is established copyright law that SW interface
>>specs are not protectable elements although there appear to be
>>some gray areas. 
Of course you can not distribute Xilinx software or IP libraries. Every
user usign your tool would need to obtain his own copy if ISE.
Apart from the copyright law does not matter at all.
Trade secrets are the interesting part. Easy, if you only use
information that is available from published sources.

> Software copyrights yes, but Xilinx claims a business contract license
> to protect IP in the release ... that is different law, and to violate
> the license is breach of contract.
So, do not buy it as a business. Have someone by a copy privately.
(For example get the student edition from the bookstore). No you have
all the consumer protection restrictions in place that limit what xilinx
can state in an EULA.

>>The XDL tool explicitly states that you are allowed to create tools
>>that use the output of NCD2XDL or tools that create input for XDL2NCD.
>>This use of course is restricted to use for Xilinx devices per the
>>ISE 8.1i EULA.
It is not possible to restrict the scope of usage of a product by a
private customer. (principle of first sale, "Ersch�pfungsgrundsatz")

Imagine a car from a manufacturer that has an EULA that says you are not
allowed  to use it to drive to car dealers selling competitor models.

You can use the xilinx tools in any way you like. But you are not
allowed to distribute or modify them.

> It is this "restricted to use for Xilinx devices" that violates every
> open
> source license, and which as a developer using BSD licenses that we
> can not accept (nor does any other accepted open source license). Be
> cause of this restriction, there is no forum where the software can be
> released, as it's impossible to acertain that the recipient is also
> bound
> by the Xilinx license terms. Open source requires that no restrictions
> be
> placed on the distribution, other than governmental.

You can have an open source tool that only works when certain closed
sourced tools are present. I for example run Linux on a closed sourced
processor and am even using closed source graphic board drivers.
An of course you can create input files in the language that the closed
source tool uses. (fair use, you must be allowed to do that to use the tool)

> So read the EULA carefully, as the business contract language requires
> that you protect the IP assets you aquire as part of the license ... as
> they are trade secret and proprietary ... not public domain, and free to
> distribute.

I am not so sure about the IP. The core generator, yes.
The libraries used to synthesize HDL, probably not.
There were cases with high courts in the 80s about whether you need to
pay royalties when using sound synthesizer or sampler sounds in music
produced for profit.
The courts clearly stated that it is the intended use of an instrument
to produce music, an that you do not need to pay royalties.
What Xilinx is trying to do is to say: "You do not need to pay royalties
if you only playback your music with CD players of brand X"
I do not believe that works out.


All this reasoning does not apply to WebPack! When you give something
away for free, you can impose almost any restrictions that you like.

Kolja Sulimma

"Ed McGettigan" <ed.mcgettigan@xilinx.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:drbp92$nh99@cliff.xsj.xilinx.com...
> fpga_toys@yahoo.com wrote:
>>  I've actually told
>> everyone who I am, and it's not that difficult to figure it out,
>
> I can't find any reference to you, so who are you then.
>
> Ed

Ed,

you are right he hasnt told that, he actually told to me that I should get 
used to people (like he) hiding its identify.

but if I am not mistaken then his name is: John Bass

-- 
Antti Lukats
http://www.xilant.com

"Larry Doolittle" <ldoolitt@localhost.localdomain> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:slrndti8og.2a7.ldoolitt@localhost.localdomain...
> On 2006-01-26, Antti Lukats <antti@openchip.org> wrote:
>><fpga_toys@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> news:1138297173.649950.136370@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> So the question to Xilinx is, will Xilinx release the NDA restrictions
>>> on XDL, and the associated library interfaces so that open source tools
>>> can legally target ISE supported FPGAs?
>>>
>>> It's pretty clear that most of the regulars here, just assume that XDL
>>> and the associated libraries, are an open interface, and think it's ok
>>> to ignore the IP restrictions in the ISE license. The legaleze says
>>> otherwise.
>>>
>>> So how about a clear definative legal statement about what are legal
>>> ISE interfaces for open source development.
>>>
>>
>> you are constantly talking about NDA restricted XDL documents, as if you
>> have signed an NDA with Xilinx and received special documents under that 
>> NDA
>> agreement, in wich case its better for you that read those NDA agreements
>> (signed by you and Xilinx) over again. If you have not signed such
>> agreements then stop talking about NDA in this context.
>
> The conservative assumption is that the EULA we all click when
> we install ISE is a valid document, and it has NDA-like clauses.
> The poster has clearly read that NDA very carefully.
> If you live in a country where such agreements are non-binding,
> let us know here.  Then software developers in that country can
> proceed without fear -- until Xilinx stops exporting chips and
> software to that country for the same reason.
>
>> As of your Question to Xilinx - do not expect an reply as it totally 
>> unclear
>> what you are actually asking as you have not defined that.
>
> It's clear to me.  Are you being willfully disingenuous?
> Well, maybe some clarification should be made of the phrase
> "associated library interfaces".
>
>> In the form you
>> asked your question it would deserve a "NO" as replay from any entity 
>> that
>> has any understanding of legal matters. Xilinx can not say YES to your
>> question. Well you probably know that yourself. So what are you trying to
>> achive with your push?
>
> In the short run, maybe the regulars will admit that XDL can not
> currently be considered an open interface.  In the long run, maybe
> we can pressure Xilinx to remove NDA restrictions on information
> contained in XDL data files, to permit open source code to monkey
> with FPGA internals (without fear of being JHDLBits-ized).  Presumably
> that means Xilinx's engineers and lawers have to have a serious
> talk, since a Xilinx lawyer can hardly be expected to say "YES"
> to a request he doesn't understand.
>
> Only after this is resolved, can the regulars here go back to
> telling people who want to make bitstreams with open source
> software to use XDL instead.
>
>        - Larry
Larry

you are mixing up things.

the EULA is not NDA, and there is no sign off of an NDA required to obtain 
acces to XDL,
at least I am 100% that I have not signed any NDA with Xilinx or any other 
FPGA company.

mr fpga_toys asked for in such form that answering YES would have mean for 
Xilinx as an
commitment to open source almost everything, hence my comment that only 
answer is no.

and you are also messing up 'creation of bitstream' and XDL - XDL files and 
NCD files
contain exactly NULL information about the actual bitstream format. So it 
doesnt matter
what is the license of the use of XDL it is not sufficent to create 
bitststreams anyway.

if it did not come clear: XDL (and NCD as well) do not have any information 
about
the bitstream (eg location of bits in the configuration memory of the FPGA).


-- 
Antti Lukats
http://www.xilant.com

Antti Lukats wrote:
> the EULA is not NDA, and there is no sign off of an NDA required to obtain
> acces to XDL,
> at least I am 100% that I have not signed any NDA with Xilinx or any other
> FPGA company.

Actually it is. One of several specific examples is the restriction on
discussing benchmarking.