Free Hardware

This it is a message of Richard Staman creator of free softeare
fundation and GNU on an idea to construct free hardware in FPGAs.

http://lists.duskglow.com/open-graphics/2007-January/008663.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman

Jhoberg <jrquevedor@gmail.com> posted on 19 Apr 2007 21:39:00 -0700
in news:comp.arch.fpga :

"This it is a message of Richard Staman creator of free softeare
fundation and GNU on an idea to construct free hardware in FPGAs.

http://lists.duskglow.com/open-graphics/2007-January/008663.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
"

On 2000 March 8th Richard M. Stallman has made a presentation in Trinity
College Dublin. Near the end, a member of the audience has asked a
question re the GPL and hardware. Richard M. Stallman has responded
appreciating no relevance of freedom to hardware. Perhaps he had not
been aware of code written in hardware description languages which had
already been licensed according to the second version of the GPL by
that time, and perhaps he has revised his opinion.

Regards,
Colin Paul Gloster

Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org> writes:
> Perhaps he had not been aware of code written in hardware
> description languages which had

The key word here is "code".  IMHO RMS's point is that the types of
freedoms that the GPL provides (use, change, share) do not apply to
physical objects, because the cost of copying physical objects is
non-trivial.  So, you can GPL the code *in* an FPGA (software), but
you can't GPL the FPGA itself (hardware).  How could you copy a chip
and share it with your friends?  "Hey Colin, could you email me a
Spartan 3?"

On 20 Apr., 17:17, DJ Delorie <d...@delorie.com> wrote:
> Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Glos...@ACM.org> writes:
>
> > Perhaps he had not been aware of code written in hardware
> > description languages which had
>
> The key word here is "code".  IMHO RMS's point is that the types of
> freedoms that the GPL provides (use, change, share) do not apply to
> physical objects, because the cost of copying physical objects is
> non-trivial.  So, you can GPL the code *in* an FPGA (software), but
> you can't GPL the FPGA itself (hardware).  How could you copy a chip
> and share it with your friends?  "Hey Colin, could you email me a
> Spartan 3?"

well FPGA's DO MAKE it possible to send HARDWARE per email.

the only assumption is that the receiving party has some equipment
with an FPGA inside.
this maybe the LCD TV as example or some other equipment.

so by loading the new bit file to the FPGA in his LCD TV the FPGA will
transform to some hardware that did not previously exist at the
premises of the receiver of the "hardware per email"...

so the issue about licensing is not trivial :)

Antti

"Antti" <Antti.Lukats@xilant.com> wrote in message 
news:1177083477.214936.26030@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> well FPGA's DO MAKE it possible to send HARDWARE per email.
>
>
> Antti
>
To be pedantic, I disagree. You're not emailing hardware, you're emailing a 
way of configuring hardware that someone has. Same as emailed software 
configures your PC.
Cheers, Syms. 

On a sunny day (20 Apr 2007 08:37:57 -0700) it happened Antti
<Antti.Lukats@xilant.com> wrote in
<1177083477.214936.26030@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:

>On 20 Apr., 17:17, DJ Delorie <d...@delorie.com> wrote:
>> Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Glos...@ACM.org> writes:
>>
>> > Perhaps he had not been aware of code written in hardware
>> > description languages which had
>>
>> The key word here is "code".  IMHO RMS's point is that the types of
>> freedoms that the GPL provides (use, change, share) do not apply to
>> physical objects, because the cost of copying physical objects is
>> non-trivial.  So, you can GPL the code *in* an FPGA (software), but
>> you can't GPL the FPGA itself (hardware).  How could you copy a chip
>> and share it with your friends?  "Hey Colin, could you email me a
>> Spartan 3?"
>
>well FPGA's DO MAKE it possible to send HARDWARE per email.
>
>the only assumption is that the receiving party has some equipment
>with an FPGA inside.
>this maybe the LCD TV as example or some other equipment.
>
>so by loading the new bit file to the FPGA in his LCD TV the FPGA will
>transform to some hardware that did not previously exist at the
>premises of the receiver of the "hardware per email"...
>
>so the issue about licensing is not trivial :)
>
>Antti

Actually there is no difference between what you describe and software.
"Hardware" refers to transistors, diodes, silicon, etc...
Programs and HDL code (could even contain sequential stuff, a processor) are
'soft', in the sense as paint that can be applied to a canvas.
The FPGA / PC, micro, what not, is the canvas.

This will all change the day somebody markets the 'replicator' (as in Startrek).
Man that would be a day:-)
Laws would have to be made, people would be locked away (like the ones who did
dollar bills on the first photo color copier)... LOL.

 

"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:f0aoni$af8$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> This will all change the day somebody markets the 'replicator' (as in 
> Startrek).
> Man that would be a day:-)
> Laws would have to be made, people would be locked away (like the ones who 
> did
> dollar bills on the first photo color copier)... LOL.
>
You could replicate yourself before the Feds arrive. Which one would they 
gaol?
Syms :-) 

On Apr 20, 11:11 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Actually there is no difference between what you describe and software.
> "Hardware" refers to transistors, diodes, silicon, etc...
> Programs and HDL code (could even contain sequential stuff, a processor) are
> 'soft', in the sense as paint that can be applied to a canvas.
> The FPGA / PC, micro, what not, is the canvas.

But doesn't Xilinx being a fabless chip vendor emphasize the point
that the transistors, diodes, etc are also "software" in the sense
that they too come out of the designers computers as data files?
Likewise all modern PCB's.

You could argue that becuase they aren't changeable in a given device
they are permanent, but then so is software (firmware) in a ROM.

On a sunny day (20 Apr 2007 10:14:48 -0700) it happened cs_posting@hotmail.com
wrote in <1177089288.591175.246610@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:

>On Apr 20, 11:11 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually there is no difference between what you describe and software.
>> "Hardware" refers to transistors, diodes, silicon, etc...
>> Programs and HDL code (could even contain sequential stuff, a processor) are
>> 'soft', in the sense as paint that can be applied to a canvas.
>> The FPGA / PC, micro, what not, is the canvas.
>
>But doesn't Xilinx being a fabless chip vendor emphasize the point
>that the transistors, diodes, etc are also "software" in the sense
>that they too come out of the designers computers as data files?
>Likewise all modern PCB's.
>
>You could argue that becuase they aren't changeable in a given device
>they are permanent, but then so is software (firmware) in a ROM.

Thats is true.
You can even think of a relais system, that in fact executes a hardwired
sequence -say program- as only hardware.

Maybe then it is only 'soft' as long as it is changable and can be copied.
There are cases where it is not clear at all, a read protected FLASH micro
or FPGA for example.
It cannot be read and it cannot be changed (without losing the info), so
then it is hardware.
This is my view actually, I have sold PICs with code I wrote that just
do some hardware function - so it is a different chip say now it is a display driver -
as hardware.
The new call it 'firmware'.
In the patent world. although software here in Europe may not be patentable,
'firmware connected to some functionality is'.
I am no lawyer, big companies could kill each other with lawsuits over things this.

It is very tricky, should a processor that runs Linux OS make its micro code available
under GPL too ;-)?
LOL

On Apr 19, 11:39 pm, Jhoberg <jrqueve...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This it is a message of Richard Staman creator of free softeare
> fundation and GNU on an idea to construct free hardware in FPGAs.
>
> http://lists.duskglow.com/open-graphics/2007-January/008663.html
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman

Some nonfree architectures exist at the moment but it is known as a
processor JAVA and Core of processor ARM work like in which I could
run GNU/Linux in FPGA, like a Spartan3:

JAVA Processor
http://www.jopdesign.com/

Core ARM
http://www.opencores.org/cvsweb.shtml/sARM7TM/

Microblaze
http://www.xilinx.com/xlnx/xebiz/designResources/ip_product_details.jsp?key=micro_blaze
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroBlaze