Is the Wishbone in itself licensed/protected in any way? #24
Comments
|
The B4 spec has been highly disputed because of that (along technical issues). I would recommend starting from B3, which also was the initial goal when we tried to support the standard. Unfortunately, the steward @rherveille didn't further participate in the dicussions and the entire project is stalled since then. Starting from the B3 spec was the initial goal and some work was done, we are happy to discuss proceeding under a different name if you are planning to permanently evolve it. |
|
Is there any mailing list? |
|
Sorry, I am very busy with projects.
What do we need to do and what are you awaiting from me?
Richard
…Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Mar 2022, at 10:09, Stefan Wallentowitz ***@***.***> wrote:
The B4 spec has been highly disputed because of that (along technical issues). I would recommend starting from B3, which also was the initial goal when we tried to support the standard. Unfortunately, the steward @rherveille<https://github.com/rherveille> didn't further participate in the dicussions and the entire project is stalled since then.
Starting from the B3 spec was the initial goal and some work was done, we are happy to discuss proceeding under a different name if you are planning to permanently evolve it.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#24 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADYKSCJ4Q47FEYU5L53U5Q3VCQD4DANCNFSM5SBBPULA>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
@rherveille personally I don't want anything. I am wondering how much I can take from the Wishbone when designing similar bus. |
|
Besides the obvious question; why do you want to design a similar bus instead of using Wishbone?
The Wishbone spec is placed in the public domain. The document, as is, can be used without restrictions.
However ‘public domain’ does not mean free of copyright or other rights, especially given the large variety of legislation in the world around those subjects.
Also keep in mind that for Wishbone a large patent investigation was done. Wishbone almost certainly doesn’t infringe any patents, but you never know until it’s actually gone to court. Having said that, given that wishbone almost celebrates its 25anniversary, I think it is safe to say it’s safe.
However any derivate you develop might infringe on someone’s patents or copyrights.
Richard
From: m-kru ***@***.***>
Date: Wednesday, 30 March 2022 at 21:41
To: fossi-foundation/wishbone ***@***.***>
Cc: Richard Herveille ***@***.***>, Mention ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [fossi-foundation/wishbone] Is the Wishbone in itself licensed/protected in any way? (Issue #24)
@rherveille<https://github.com/rherveille> personally I don't want anything. I am wondering how much I can take from the Wishbone when designing similar bus.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#24 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADYKSCNDEZSERNPFRDCTIJTVCSU65ANCNFSM5SBBPULA>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
Because I don't like what happened with Wishbone in B4. The specification is no longer orthogonal. Standard cycle with registered feedback bus cycle duplicates the functionality of pipelined cycle capabilities. Generally the pipelined mode is more robust and generic and this is the only advantage of B4. I think the standard mode should be removed. I don't like the fact that error is single bit information, this is not enough and extending it with data tag is not a solution that scales well. I also think that operand size and granularity should not be part of the bus specification. Maybe granularity, but for sure not the operand size. |
|
Fully agree. We hat this discussion and therefore started a new spec from B3. Unfortunately it was stalled due to lack of time and responses. We can release an update from the current master branch if @rherveille agrees. We would welcome any further development of B3 towards further revisions. @rherveille is the steward here, maybe you can delegate the further development to interested developers that have the bandwidth? |
|
@rherveille ping |
|
:) It's probably time to start again |
That is not the case. PD menas that it is indeed without restrictions and free of copyright. The vast legislation in the world is based on the Berne convention. The real question is if WB is infact in the PD, how a work is put into the PD very specific in each country, and in some you cannot do so (other than dying and waiting many years). |
|
* That is not the case. PD menas that it is indeed without restrictions and free of copyright. The vast legislation in the world is based on the Berne convention.
* The real question is if WB is infact in the PD, how a work is put into the PD very specific in each country, and in some you cannot do so (other than dying and waiting many years).
That is not the case. In some countries you can not relinquish copyright. Meaning a document is always covered under some copyright and owned by some entities.
However Wishbone is consider to be the public domain as its understood by most people and legislations. The document and its contents can be used and copied without restrictions. Each individual contributor gave up any rights to their respective works in writing.
Wishbone B4 veered of that path and specifically added copyright (which goes against the Wishbone principle and the wish of its original inventor). Hence I consider Wishbone B4 not part of the official B4 spec, but a branch.
Richard
From: Alfred M. Szmidt ***@***.***>
Date: Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 01:56
To: fossi-foundation/wishbone ***@***.***>
Cc: Richard Herveille ***@***.***>, Mention ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [fossi-foundation/wishbone] Is the Wishbone in itself licensed/protected in any way? (Issue #24)
The Wishbone spec is placed in the public domain. The document, as is, can be used without restrictions. However ‘public domain’ does not mean free of copyright or other rights, especially given the large variety of legislation in the world around those subjects.
That is not the case. PD menas that it is indeed without restrictions and free of copyright. The vast legislation in the world is based on the Berne convention.
The real question is if WB is infact in the PD, how a work is put into the PD very specific in each country, and in some you cannot do so (other than dying and waiting many years).
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#24 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADYKSCNFDRMNWMP5Z4ZBW2TXHCBMLANCNFSM5SBBPULA>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
No, it is absolutley the case. PD literally means copyright does not
apply.
Copyright "was added" as soon as the work was created, you literally
cannot relinquish copyright in any country. It is not how things
work. If that is or isn't the intent of the document writers I won't
speculate, but having dabbled in this quagmire for several decades, it
pains me to see that this confusion still perpetuates.
In some sense, B4 is beter from a legal point of view in that it
actually has a clear copyright status, while B3 does not. For the
same reasons why many projects reject "my changes are in the PD' and
instead opt that one explicitly licenses the work under a CC0 like
license (which has equivalent properties as PD -- but still copyrighted).
If the intent of the authors is something like PD, then I would
strongly suggest picking the CC0, which achives the exact same thing,
and doesn't go into the mess that is copyright.
|
|
Time to read up on CC0 I guess.
When Wishbone was released into the public domain, we had lawyers looking into it.
Their conclusion at the time (almost 25years ago) was that Public Domain was sufficient.
But things do change over time.
Richard
From: Alfred M. Szmidt ***@***.***>
Date: Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 08:19
To: fossi-foundation/wishbone ***@***.***>
Cc: Richard Herveille ***@***.***>, Mention ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [fossi-foundation/wishbone] Is the Wishbone in itself licensed/protected in any way? (Issue #24)
No, it is absolutley the case. PD literally means copyright does not
apply.
Copyright "was added" as soon as the work was created, you literally
cannot relinquish copyright in any country. It is not how things
work. If that is or isn't the intent of the document writers I won't
speculate, but having dabbled in this quagmire for several decades, it
pains me to see that this confusion still perpetuates.
In some sense, B4 is beter from a legal point of view in that it
actually has a clear copyright status, while B3 does not. For the
same reasons why many projects reject "my changes are in the PD' and
instead opt that one explicitly licenses the work under a CC0 like
license (which has equivalent properties as PD -- but still copyrighted).
If the intent of the authors is something like PD, then I would
strongly suggest picking the CC0, which achives the exact same thing,
and doesn't go into the mess that is copyright.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#24 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADYKSCMGREZDHPVH6WW6JBDXHDOHVANCNFSM5SBBPULA>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
The Wishbone B3 specification doesn't have any copyright, Wishbone B4 has copyright. However, what about the whole Wishbone idea and the design concept? Is it protected by any license or patent? I am wondering how much can one be inspired by Wishbone when designing his own bus.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: