All:

 From our legal group-

"Xilinx invests a significant amount in research and development, and
vigorously protects and enforces its intellectual property rights
resulting from its research and development efforts.  It is also correct
that when Xilinx licenses its software and tools, Xilinx prohibits its
customers from reverse engineering and decompiling its software
products.  Also, the bitstream created by using Xilinx software is owned
by Xilinx can only be used on Xilinx programmable products, for example,
FPGAs.

Xilinx licensing terms and conditions are similar to other companies
that provide similar products and services.  Therefore, Xilinx sees no
basis for amending or modifying the terms and conditions of its software
licenses and the rights to use the bitstream created with the use of
Xilinx software."

For Xilinx sponsored University projects, there may be separate 
agreements (I know because I am sponsoring a project, and I had to 
review the new agreement).

So, for anyone using our software, read the agreement, and be sure you 
are in compliance.  If you desire to do anything outside of the 
agreement, please contact our legal department, or the Xilinx University 
Program.

Austin

Austin Lesea wrote:
> So, for anyone using our software, read the agreement, and be sure you
> are in compliance.  If you desire to do anything outside of the
> agreement, please contact our legal department, or the Xilinx University
> Program.

Austin,

Thanks for being direct and bringing this info directly to this forum.

The broad assumption is that XDL and the interfaces/libraries
that it exposes are a public interface. Combined with the fact
that is it openly disclosed outside NDA on a very large number of
projects,
what is the specific Xilinx statement about XDL and related info being
a public use interface to ISE outside of NDA restrictions?

John

On a sunny day (Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:50:46 -0800)
it happened Austin Lesea
<a...@xilinx.com> wrote in <drljlm$3...@xco-news.xilinx.com>:

>All:
>
> From our legal group-

> Also, the bitstream created by using Xilinx software is owned
>by Xilinx can only be used on Xilinx programmable products, for example,
>FPGAs.

This looks like arather dangerous typo, I presume you wanted to write:

"the bitstream format as generated by Xilinx software "
You do not claim rights to the content of my bitstream I hope?


?

John,

"XDL and related info being a public use interface to ISE outside of NDA 
restrictions" is clearly prohibited.

But, if XDL is used inside of the agreement, then that is OK.

For example, if you created a XDL file with our tools, and then 
processed it with your tool, and then wanted to use in in silicon other 
than Xilinx, that is prohibited.

If you created your own XDL file, without use of our tools, sent it 
through your own tools, to do something with it (for reasons unknown) 
then I suppose (but we can research further) we don't care what you do 
with it.

But if you then used our tools again (to do anything) to the XDL (you 
created), then again, its use is restricted to Xilinx silicon.

So, if our software is part of the chain, then the agreement applies.

Austin

Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:50:46 -0800) it happened Austin Lesea
> <a...@xilinx.com> wrote in <drljlm$3...@xco-news.xilinx.com>:
> 
> 
>>All:
>>
>>From our legal group-
> 
> 
>>Also, the bitstream created by using Xilinx software is owned
>>by Xilinx can only be used on Xilinx programmable products, for example,
>>FPGAs.

Hmm, yes, not everyone will agree to that claim...

> 
> This looks like a rather dangerous typo, I presume you wanted to write:
> 
> "the bitstream format as generated by Xilinx software "
> You do not claim rights to the content of my bitstream I hope?

Of course they do!
  These are lawyers, they claim all rights possible, until someone
pushes back. That's how they work.

  I _can_ sense an opening here, for the (A) company that claims
to be "the fastest growing major programmable logic company in 2005"

-jg

Austin Lesea wrote:
> "XDL and related info being a public use interface to ISE outside of NDA
> restrictions" is clearly prohibited.

Thanks Austin for making this clear.  You mentioned that Xilinx
provides
exemptions to university projects. There is significant documentation
to
be gleaned from various published works which are easily located with
google. Most of these appear to be university sources.

Can we assume that source code, VDL files, papers, and instructional
materials which describe VDL and related interfaces are approved
disclosures by Xilinx that open source can freely use to develop
open source tools in support of Xilinx customers?

John

John,

No, you can not assume anything.  In fact, I think you (personally) 
should talk to our legal department, and reach an agreement.

Austin

Jan,

Xilinx restricts the use of the bitstream to only be used with its products.

In that sense, we retain "ownership."  I am not a lawyer, so I can't 
speak or quote legalize.  What I placed in quotes was from a lawyer.

They do not make typos.

I might.

Austin

Correction:

See I can make typos...

Austin


> In that sense, we retain "ownership."  I am not a lawyer, so I can't 
> speak or quote legalize.  What I placed in quotes

IN MY PREVIOUS POSTING

> was from a lawyer.

Jim Granville wrote:
> Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:50:46 -0800) it happened Austin Lesea
>> <a...@xilinx.com> wrote in <drljlm$3...@xco-news.xilinx.com>:
>>
>>
>>> All:
>>>
>>> From our legal group-
>>
>>
>>> Also, the bitstream created by using Xilinx software is owned
>>> by Xilinx can only be used on Xilinx programmable products, for example,
>>> FPGAs.
> 
> Hmm, yes, not everyone will agree to that claim...
> 
>>
>> This looks like a rather dangerous typo, I presume you wanted to write:
>>
>> "the bitstream format as generated by Xilinx software "
>> You do not claim rights to the content of my bitstream I hope?
> 
> Of course they do!
>  These are lawyers, they claim all rights possible, until someone
> pushes back. That's how they work.
> 
>  I _can_ sense an opening here, for the (A) company that claims
> to be "the fastest growing major programmable logic company in 2005"
> 
> -jg
> 
> 

The (A) company used these exact same EULA restrictions against Clear Logic
and won.

More details here: http://www.internetcases.com/archives/2005/09/ninth_circuit_a_1.html

Ed