Xilinx Legal

I think that the issue of what's open source and what's propriety in Xilinx
tools is not very well defined.  Three licenses pop up at the start, The
Xilinx "shall not" and 2 GPL "you can as you please"  Xilinx don't
distinguish what license covers what programs/libraries etc.  Something GNU
(and any lawyer) will say you must make clear.

I would also suggest that why even bother with XDL in the first place.. sure
its great for Xilinx... but make a common object language.  This can be
compiled into either Xilinx XDL.. which can use the Xilinx Tool chain to
build an FPGA.. or into Altera to let Quartus do its thing. or any other
FPGA Vender.
The main thing is what's in your source.  No Xilinx Libraries, no Altera, no
nothing except GPL.  In fact.. that's what Mentor and others do already by
using EDF files.  Then there aren't any legal issues ? Right ?  XDL is then
only used for Xilinx's :-)


Simon



"Austin Lesea" <austin@xilinx.com> wrote in message
news:drm501$3ls9@xco-news.xilinx.com...
> cs,
>
> Going from "using XDL" for some unspecified reason, to "open source" is
> a big step.  Too big.
>
> There is nothing "open source" about any of Xilinx's software.
>
> Right now, the discussion has been about an ASCII representation of
> connections that Xilinx developed as a convenience (replaced an earlier
> format).
>
> XDL's use is only restricted by the agreements on the software that
> created it, and uses it (that we supply).  It also specifically allows
> uses (for which it is intended) like someone writes a parser to generate
> a nice report from the XDL file (noted in the comments on XDL in our
> documentation).
>
> If you chose XDL to use as your intermediate language for your CS111
> FPGA, I think it would be a curious choice, but one we would not have
> much claim to, as if you had your own tools to create it, and use it,
> test it; and you never used our tools, IP, or patents, why would we care?
>
> Austin
>

Austin Lesea schrieb:
> 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.

LOL, ROTFL.

Xilinx owns the bitstream? And Microsoft owns my PhD thesis because I
typed it in Word? Wait, I created a PDF with Acrobat, so the PDF is
owned by Adobe. But it was created from a file owned by Microsoft, so
now Microsoft needs to sue Adobe.

Sorry Austin, that is complete nonsense. Xilinx can not own a file that
contains IP both from me an third parties.
A shared ownership might be possible but I really doubt that.

There was a case about two years back were a computer game manufacturer
claimed that it owned level files created by an editor delivered with a
game. They lost the case.


Please have you legal department read up the first sale principle and
have them think again whether they can restrict what a private customer
does with the output of the tools.
And after they checked that for the US, have them recheck for
scandinavian countries.

Kolja Sulimma


BTW: If I typed my HDL in the ISE editor, can I still publish it under
GPL (according to your legal department)

On 30 Jan 2006 15:28:41 -0800, cs_posting@hotmail.com wrote:

>John Williams wrote:
>
>> What you've now created is a hybrid license, incompatible with the pure
>> GPL (ok, so you can't host it on sourceforge, no big deal).  If someone
>> uses the tool to target an Altera part, then they are breaking the
>> conditions of their license and it is therefore immediately revoked.
>>
>> You would add a viral clause which makes sure that further refinements
>> of the tool are also covered by the same dual condition (GPL + Xilinx only).
>
>But what if someone figures out XDL by reverse engineering your tool,
>rather than Xilinx's software?  How do you prohibit someone from
>reverse engineering (ie, reading and taking notes) open code?

The viral clause must still apply to the reverse engineered tool;  
it has to define reverse engineering as a form of "use".

- Brian

Ed McGettigan schrieb:

> 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

There is no mentioning of the EULA. Apparently there is a special law in
the US to protect semiconductor masks and the court treated the
bitstream as a mask work.
The EULA can still be completely invalid.

I just skimmed the law, and I still do not see how Altera could possibly
have won.
It says

"the �owner� of a mask work is the person who created the mask work"
If I start bitgen, I am generating the mask work and not altera. I use a
tool to do it, yes, but surely I am still the creator?

But even if Altera was the owner, it goes on:
"the protection provided for a mask work under this chapter shall
commence on the date on which the mask work is registered under section
908, or the date on which the mask work is first commercially exploited
anywhere in the world"
Surely Altera did not register my bitstream and did not exploit it
comercially before I sent it to Clear Logic?

Then the law goes on, and explicitely allows to reverse engineer the
mask (bitstream) to create your own bitstreams with the information
obtained:

�906 (a) 1 and 2: "it is not an infringement [...] for [...] a person
who performs the analysis or evaluation described in paragraph (1) to
incorporate the results of such conduct in an original mask work which
is made to be distributed."


I conclude that �906 (a) of the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of
1994 permits to reverse engineer bitstream information to create open
source tools. But hey, IANAL.

Kolja Sulimma

Kolja Sulimma wrote:

> Sorry Austin, that is complete nonsense. Xilinx can not own a file that
> contains IP both from me an third parties.
> A shared ownership might be possible but I really doubt that.

That seems to be the most logical basis for a claim.  Compare for
example, this partial passage from RedHat's default licensing of the
Cygwin compatability layer:

"The Cygwin API library found in the winsup subdirectory of the source
code is also covered by the GNU GPL (with exceptions; see below). By
default, all executables link against this library (and in the process
include GPL'd Cygwin glue code). This means that unless you modify the
tools so that compiled executables do not make use of the Cygwin
library, your compiled programs will also have to be free software
distributed under the GPL with source code available to all."

This seems to say that if you compile in a way that includes bits of
their library, RedHat has an ownership interest in your binary.  The
only difference is that they exercise that interest by extending the
GPL to the result, whereas Xilinx exercises its interest by extending
its restrictions on keeping the technology proprietary and only running
it on Xilinx silicon.  RedHat is also willing to sell you a license to
use the parts of the Cygwin stuff which they own under non-GPL terms,
and Xilinx may be willing to license a bit stream to you slightly
differently if you can make a convincing argument to why it would be in
their interest to do so.

cs_posting@hotmail.com schrieb:
> Kolja Sulimma wrote:
> 
> 
>>Sorry Austin, that is complete nonsense. Xilinx can not own a file that
>>contains IP both from me an third parties.
>>A shared ownership might be possible but I really doubt that.
> 
> This seems to say that if you compile in a way that includes bits of
> their library, RedHat has an ownership interest in your binary.  The
> only difference is that they exercise that interest by extending the
> GPL to the result, whereas Xilinx exercises its interest by extending
> its restrictions on keeping the technology proprietary and only running
> it on Xilinx silicon.  RedHat is also willing to sell you a license to
> use the parts of the Cygwin stuff which they own under non-GPL terms,
> and Xilinx may be willing to license a bit stream to you slightly
> differently if you can make a convincing argument to why it would be in
> their interest to do so.

That would be shared ownership, which is possible.
But to claim that, Xilinx must argue that the bitstream contains
material that is protected by copyright. Is is not enough that it was
created with a tool that is protected by copyright.
(Using a compiler/text editor vs. linking to a library/using a letter
template)

Some bitstreams might contain Xilinx library elements but clearly not
all bitstreams do.

Kolja Sulimma

BTW:
The ISE toolflow uses TCL at some points. If the use of a tool alone
would impose the license of the tool on the result all bitstreams would
be GPL. So Xilinx needs to explain why the EULA of ISE does affect the
bitstream while the license of TCL does not.

Kolja Sulimma wrote:

> The ISE toolflow uses TCL at some points. If the use of a tool alone
> would impose the license of the tool on the result all bitstreams would
> be GPL. So Xilinx needs to explain why the EULA of ISE does affect the
> bitstream while the license of TCL does not.

Does the license of TCL make claims about the output of TCL-using
tools?
My guess is it doesn't.  So that's a difference right there - it
doesn't really give us any clues about the potential validity of making
such a claim.

Kolja Sulimma wrote:
> BTW:
> The ISE toolflow uses TCL at some points. If the use of a tool alone
> would impose the license of the tool on the result all bitstreams would
> be GPL. So Xilinx needs to explain why the EULA of ISE does affect the
> bitstream while the license of TCL does not.

Hey Guys, let's back off and let the open source advocates inside
Xilinx
to have time to work out how they want to be the good guys.

They clearly recieve a lot of value from free open source that they use
internally and put into their product. The backlash could clearly be
creating XGPL licenses, which allow use for all but those companies
that refuse to be equally open with their EULA's. That would a a lively
debate, but we see it already with the number of free software licenses
which specifically prohibt commercial use because of these abuses,
and the mindset that if someone is going to profit from their work,
they
want part of the pie in the form of royalties or license fees.

The reality is that all the information open source needs is out of
their
control anyway, it would just take a legal battle to secure it, that
maybe
even FSF would fund. I've already documented that fact.

So, let's just give Xilinx a chance to think about this more carefully,
and
have a chance to volunteer to be good open source citizens.

Kolja Sulimma wrote:
> Ed McGettigan schrieb:
> 
>> 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
> 
> There is no mentioning of the EULA. Apparently there is a special law in
> the US to protect semiconductor masks and the court treated the
> bitstream as a mask work.
> The EULA can still be completely invalid.
> 
> I just skimmed the law, and I still do not see how Altera could possibly
> have won.
> It says
> 
> "the �owner� of a mask work is the person who created the mask work"
> If I start bitgen, I am generating the mask work and not altera. I use a
> tool to do it, yes, but surely I am still the creator?
> 
> But even if Altera was the owner, it goes on:
> "the protection provided for a mask work under this chapter shall
> commence on the date on which the mask work is registered under section
> 908, or the date on which the mask work is first commercially exploited
> anywhere in the world"
> Surely Altera did not register my bitstream and did not exploit it
> comercially before I sent it to Clear Logic?
> 
> Then the law goes on, and explicitely allows to reverse engineer the
> mask (bitstream) to create your own bitstreams with the information
> obtained:
> 
> �906 (a) 1 and 2: "it is not an infringement [...] for [...] a person
> who performs the analysis or evaluation described in paragraph (1) to
> incorporate the results of such conduct in an original mask work which
> is made to be distributed."
> 
> 
> I conclude that �906 (a) of the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of
> 1994 permits to reverse engineer bitstream information to create open
> source tools. But hey, IANAL.
> 
> Kolja Sulimma
> 
> 

The previous link that I cited only discussed a narrow issue that
was raised to an appellate court.  Try this one instead which has
notes on the on the  Software License Agreement.  Altera was not
claiming that they "owned" the bitstream only that use of the
bitstream was restricted to Altera only devices by the license of
the software that created it.

http://www.iplawobserver.com/2005/09/using-softwares-output-to-copy-chips.html

Ed

[disclaimer: I'm a GCC developer and former Cygwin developer]

One key difference between Cygwin and Xilinx, is that apps built with
Cygwin also *include* part of cygwin (almost verbatim) in the
resulting binary.  Do bitstreams built by Xilinx tools *include*
portions of the Xilinx tools in the resulting bitstream?  Can Xilinx
point to a bitstream and say "these 1000 bits are copied from our
library" ?

A better comparison is comparing Xilinx to GCC.  The GCC license
explicitly states that binaries built *with* GCC are not affected in
any way by GCC's license.

Note that binaries built *from* GCC (derived works) are a different
story.  GCC's runtime libraries have a specific clause that covers
linking; if you build with GCC, linking doesn't incur the GPL.  If you
build with something else, linking does incur the GPL.