So what happened to JHDLBits?

In article <1138291842.657681.212890@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 <fpga_toys@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Antti Lukats wrote:
>> well you really sound paranoid about the issue. If you do some tools that
>> produce XDL and help xilinx to sell their silicon they will not go hunting
>> you down. In how many different ways I have to say that?
>
>Or we could set the stage for another open source witch hunt, with
>Xilinx
>lawyers going after all the competitors and users asking for license
>payments
>like SCO.
>
>The whole SCO wake up call is that we deal with IP rights properly, up
>front,
>or stay clear -- and don't expect everyone to be greatful when you
>steal IP
>from some big company.
>

It seems like the whole SCO vs IBM issue has now just devolved into an issue of 
SCO trying to stay alive as long as they can by lawsuits.  While initially 
some in the open source community were afraid that SCO might have a case, now 
it's widely agreed that they never had a leg to stand on.  It appears that SCO 
had no compelling products that would attract customers anymore, so instead of 
trying to compete they decided to litigate.

Phil

Phil Tomson wrote:

> 
> Interesting that nobody from Xilinx has commented about what happened to 
> JHDLBits, nor has anyone from there commented about open source tools using 
> XDL.

See another thread,
Re: So Xilinx, is XDL and related libraries an available open source 
interface?

Ed.McGettigan@xilinx.com  wrote : [part quoted here]
"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."

So the answer rather depends on your precise/pedantic definition of open 
source.

Yes, XDL is an open specification, and you can create tools.
No, you cannot target other silicon using XDL.

To many, that would be OK.

-jg

Phil Tomson wrote:
> In another thread we've been talking about creating some open source tools for 
> parsing and manipulating XDL.  The motivation being that since bitstreams are 
> closed, working XDL might just be the next best thing.
> 
> But then someone brought up the fate of JHDLBits: apparently the prjoject was 
> squashed by Xilinx.  Does anyone have any details about what happened?  If 
> someone succeeded in developing an open source ecosystem of tools built around 
> XDL, would that project also suffer the same fate?  (It would be nice to know 
> before investing much time and effort in developing tools around XDL)

As one of the four people who worked on JHDLBits, perhaps I can clear up 
some of the misconceptions in this thread.

1. JHDLBits was indeed intended to be an open-source project, based upon 
JBits as the bitstream interface.  There was never any actual or 
attempted reverse-engineering, because JBits already gave us the 
necessary bitstream access.

2. The development team was pretty green, and though we came up with 
some interesting stuff, the project was not robust (lack of 
understanding of how and when to use exceptions, lack of understanding 
of how to use public, private, and protected access, ...).

3. There was never any effort on the part of Xilinx, legal or otherwise, 
to squash the project.  We simply got to the end of the funding 
agreement, had two people graduate, and another one eventually switch 
departments.  That left me, and I was only involved on the side because 
of my familiarity with JBits and related tools, but I was busy working 
on my own research with its own unrelated funding.

4. JHDLBits could still be a worthwhile open-source project, although 
it's completely inactive at present, and if somebody with decent 
software engineering skills feels like bringing it up to snuff, your 
contribution would likely be welcomed with open arms.

Neil

Neil,

Thank you for setting the record straight.  I am sorry that John 
Lawrence Bass (aka 'toys') has slandered the relationship, and the work 
you did.

I could not reveal the facts, as it would have violated your privacy and 
our agreeements with our research colleagues (which we respect).

Austin

Neil Steiner wrote:

-snip-

> As one of the four people who worked on JHDLBits, perhaps I can clear up 
> some of the misconceptions in this thread.
> 
> 1. JHDLBits was indeed intended to be an open-source project, based upon 
> JBits as the bitstream interface.  There was never any actual or 
> attempted reverse-engineering, because JBits already gave us the 
> necessary bitstream access.
> 
> 2. The development team was pretty green, and though we came up with 
> some interesting stuff, the project was not robust (lack of 
> understanding of how and when to use exceptions, lack of understanding 
> of how to use public, private, and protected access, ...).
> 
> 3. There was never any effort on the part of Xilinx, legal or otherwise, 
> to squash the project.  We simply got to the end of the funding 
> agreement, had two people graduate, and another one eventually switch 
> departments.  That left me, and I was only involved on the side because 
> of my familiarity with JBits and related tools, but I was busy working 
> on my own research with its own unrelated funding.
> 
> 4. JHDLBits could still be a worthwhile open-source project, although 
> it's completely inactive at present, and if somebody with decent 
> software engineering skills feels like bringing it up to snuff, your 
> contribution would likely be welcomed with open arms.

In article <43D97452.9070103@vt.edu>,
Neil Steiner  <neil.steiner@vt.edu> wrote:
>Phil Tomson wrote:
>> In another thread we've been talking about creating some open source tools for 
>> parsing and manipulating XDL.  The motivation being that since bitstreams are 
>> closed, working XDL might just be the next best thing.
>> 
>> But then someone brought up the fate of JHDLBits: apparently the prjoject was 
>> squashed by Xilinx.  Does anyone have any details about what happened?  If 
>> someone succeeded in developing an open source ecosystem of tools built around 
>> XDL, would that project also suffer the same fate?  (It would be nice to know 
>> before investing much time and effort in developing tools around XDL)
>
>As one of the four people who worked on JHDLBits, perhaps I can clear up 
>some of the misconceptions in this thread.
>
>1. JHDLBits was indeed intended to be an open-source project, based upon 
>JBits as the bitstream interface.  There was never any actual or 
>attempted reverse-engineering, because JBits already gave us the 
>necessary bitstream access.
>
>2. The development team was pretty green, and though we came up with 
>some interesting stuff, the project was not robust (lack of 
>understanding of how and when to use exceptions, lack of understanding 
>of how to use public, private, and protected access, ...).
>
>3. There was never any effort on the part of Xilinx, legal or otherwise, 
>to squash the project.  We simply got to the end of the funding 
>agreement, had two people graduate, and another one eventually switch 
>departments.  That left me, and I was only involved on the side because 
>of my familiarity with JBits and related tools, but I was busy working 
>on my own research with its own unrelated funding.
>
>4. JHDLBits could still be a worthwhile open-source project, although 
>it's completely inactive at present, and if somebody with decent 
>software engineering skills feels like bringing it up to snuff, your 
>contribution would likely be welcomed with open arms.
>
>Neil


Neil,

Thanks for clearing this up.

Is the source code available anywhere?


Phil

Neil Steiner wrote:

> As one of the four people who worked on JHDLBits, perhaps I can clear up
> some of the misconceptions in this thread.
>
> 1. JHDLBits was indeed intended to be an open-source project, based upon
> JBits as the bitstream interface.  There was never any actual or
> attempted reverse-engineering, because JBits already gave us the
> necessary bitstream access.
>
> 2. The development team was pretty green, and though we came up with
> some interesting stuff, the project was not robust (lack of
> understanding of how and when to use exceptions, lack of understanding
> of how to use public, private, and protected access, ...).
>
> 3. There was never any effort on the part of Xilinx, legal or otherwise,
> to squash the project.  We simply got to the end of the funding
> agreement, had two people graduate, and another one eventually switch
> departments.  That left me, and I was only involved on the side because
> of my familiarity with JBits and related tools, but I was busy working
> on my own research with its own unrelated funding.
>
> 4. JHDLBits could still be a worthwhile open-source project, although
> it's completely inactive at present, and if somebody with decent
> software engineering skills feels like bringing it up to snuff, your
> contribution would likely be welcomed with open arms.
>
> Neil

Thanks Neil, I certainly stand corrected and the Information I had been
given
last Feburary, including the quote in this threads second post from
another JHDLBits
team member, has obviously been superceeded with your assertion that
Xilinx
is no longer blocking the release ... good news. There are certainly
people to
help you finish this project, if indeed Xilinx has provided written
permission to
take it open source. Clearly the Xilinx staffer that told me that would
never happen
wasn't that clueful about Xilinx's willingness to relax it's license
for your great
project. And that does indeed signal an a different spin on Xilinx and
open source
that is substantially more positive for the future.

If you can transfer the sources to the the sourceforge repository, we
will be very
happy to help you pickup and complete the development. It might be
useful to
also include in that upload a copy of the Xilinx release letter.

I do appologize for the confusion created by the out of date
information that was
given to me, and I passed on.

John

austin wrote:
> Thank you for setting the record straight.  I am sorry that John
> Lawrence Bass (aka 'toys') has slandered the relationship, and the work
> you did.
>
> I could not reveal the facts, as it would have violated your privacy and
> our agreeements with our research colleagues (which we respect).
>
> Austin

Austin, a lof of these threads have been about open, accurate, and
timely
release of information, and the confusion that is created when that
process
fails. It would not have violated the privacy to simply state that
Xilinx had
in fact provided the JHDLBits team a release on such and such a date,
which
you should have done, rather than letting the discussion degrade.

Without that, older and inaccurate information is in fact, the most
recient,
and only information available.

<eom>

> Is the source code available anywhere?

Phil and I have already taken this discussion offline.  If others are 
interested, I suspect that if you just want to see the code, you 
probably will not find it available.  If you are interested in actively 
contributing to the project (and you understand that JHDLBits is simply 
a bridge between JHDL and JBits, along with the potential for 
supplemental JBits-based tools), I can make inquiries on your behalf.

Please note that I do not regularly monitor this group, so if you have 
further questions for me, please contact me directly.

Neil

Austin Lesea wrote:
> <eom>

Posting that last known factual data is neither posting false
information,
nor is it malicious intent, nor is it slander:

Slander \Slan"der\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Slandered; p. pr. &
   vb. n. Slandering.]
   1. To defame; to injure by maliciously uttering a false
      report; to tarnish or impair the reputation of by false
      tales maliciously told or propagated; to calumniate.
      [1913 Webster]

as you falsely claimed my sharing factual data, although out of date,
was.

Slander is your and Peters open personal attacks, including the false
claim
of slander.  If you have any proof my intent was other than to be open,
direct,
factual, and accurate, please back up your rediculous claim of slander.
I have
sent you the data to backup my quote stating that Xilinx as of Feb 2005
was
holding up the release of JHDLBits. That was, is, and always will be
factual
data. If you have cause to refute it ... take it up with the original
author, and
cease this unwarranted attack on me.

Please retract your false assertion as it clearly was ment to tarnish
or impair my reputation without any cause or reason in relation to the
JHDLBits team and Xilinx as you openly claimed.