<wolfspraul>
ok but it's not so nice that the header says 'confidential and proprietary', just checking...
<kristianpaul>
yeah, me either, but afaik that always had been there so far i know/remenber
<wolfspraul>
we can also point him to the lattice url
<kristianpaul>
i dunno that url
<wolfspraul>
he posted it already and didn't like it
<wolfspraul>
but anyway, that guy was on a rant, let him rant
<wolfspraul>
I'm getting a little tired of unfriendly people. always this bad mood, bah :-)
<wolfspraul>
this morning there was a woman in front of me at the Starbucks line, the girl initially made the wrong coffee for her, iced instead of hot.
<wolfspraul>
ok that can happen
<wolfspraul>
man that woman started to yell around, horrible
<wolfspraul>
not that the wrong iced coffee wouldn't have been immediately discarded, and she got her hot one, no. but she had to make a point of this opportunity to put someone down, I guess.
<wolfspraul>
I wish there had been some good old French restaurant culture there, and the boss of the restaurant would have returned the money to this guest and kicked her out. only appropriate reaction.
<wolfspraul>
for the most part I like the comments though
<wolfspraul>
quite a few people get it, and give it the benefit of doubt too.
<wolfspraul>
hopefully we can find a way to make them follow the project somehow
<kristianpaul>
humm, currently there is not webchat/irc link from milkymist.org isnt?
<kristianpaul>
I will point some people to this chan as well..
<wolfspraul>
good idea
<qwebirc55283>
test
<qwebirc55283>
ok
<wolfspraul>
there's a twitter link at the bottom, maybe it can be repeated on top...
<wolfspraul>
ok I just did a grep -ir confidental over the source tarball, and indeed - it's in a lot of source files
<wolfspraul>
oh well
<kristianpaul>
yeah :(
<kristianpaul>
it always had been there
<wolfspraul>
of course the license agreement does permit the openess, publication, etc. so it's contradictory. we can safely assume that the license agreement supercedes the confidential & proprietary comment, but it's stupid.
<kristianpaul>
indeed (stupid)
<wolfspraul>
we should definitely not remove this confidential/proprietary remark, but maybe we can add a line pointing to the license file?
<wolfspraul>
just the LICENSE.LATTICE file in the tarball
<kristianpaul>
a README.LICENSE file in every dir in wich this confidential file is it
<wolfspraul>
maybe add 1 line right below that license header
<kristianpaul>
pointing the top LICENSE.LATTICE
<kristianpaul>
yup
<kristianpaul>
thats cleaner i think
<wolfspraul>
// Please find the license agreement LICENSE.LATTICE at the root of this source tree.
<wpwrak>
wolfspraul: maybe lekernel can ask lattice about the inconsistent wording ? does he communicate with them about the lm32 ?
<thechris>
I take it this is where people discuss things including milkymist's HDL?
<wolfspraul>
thechris: yes :-)
<wolfspraul>
wpwrak: we can try, but I doubt we will get much out of them. Lattice went to many changes/restructurings.
<wolfspraul>
through many
<wolfspraul>
so whatever manager or theory was behind the open sourcing back then, I doubt you will find anyone today who still cares even
<thechris>
ah, well, as I mentioned in qi-hardware, I found a few simulator bugs in the tmu2 code.
<wolfspraul>
that's my take, I won't waste time on this
<wolfspraul>
either we have a legally strong open sourcing in the past (which I think we have), or we are screwed :-)
<thechris>
It looks like some always blocks were converted to synchronous blocks, but the blocking assignments were left in place.
<wolfspraul>
there can be no doubt in my mind that this has been a very strong open sourcing back then, that cannot be retracted
<wolfspraul>
wpwrak: you can also email them if you like, there's no magic about that... :-)
<wolfspraul>
probably email Lattice legal right away, I think they are most likely to respond
<wpwrak>
wolfspraul: well, you want to know the history before approaching them. so better if someone who's more familiar with that does that than someone like me, who knows very little about that. just creates confusion.
<wolfspraul>
I will not email them, the situation is clear imo.
<kristianpaul>
thechris: sorry i cant comment on this bug too much, due GMT lekernel (Sebastien) may be sleep by now, but you can hang on some hours here and wait for a reply...
<kristianpaul>
thechris: i think you should write to the mail list, about your concern, it also will open the dicussion and will make more clear the posibble issue you point for all of us :-)~
<wpwrak>
wolfspraul: it would be nice to get permission to remove the inconsistent comments. or at least some soothing words from lattice legal. other people will find this and dislike it.
<wolfspraul>
kristianpaul: still there?
<wolfspraul>
our doubtful friend emailed Lattice legal, which is great
<wolfspraul>
you pointed him to section 11, which in his super high blood pressure he didn't really think through fully :-)
<wolfspraul>
section 11 is for 3rd party open source codes Lattice included with their open source codes, as specified in 11.b and 11.c
<wolfspraul>
why do people start to read a license at section 11 ?
<wolfspraul>
section 1, 2, 3, and so on applies to the Lattice source files imho
<wolfspraul>
anyway, it's great that he emailed lattice semi, even if he wrote them nonsense. let's see whether he gets a response and whether he then shares the response with us.
<wolfspraul>
he may pull a "I got a response and it's bad but I won't tell you" on us, which I would fully dismiss.
<wolfspraul>
:-)
<wolfspraul>
license fun
<wolfspraul>
if only companies would pick established licenses rather than writing their own...
<aw>
xiangfu, the new booted show up patch from 2011-05-09 is blue background. right?
<wpwrak>
wolfspraul: the streets would be full of starving lawyers ...
<wpwrak>
wolfspraul: how will we find out if that pem got a result ?
<wolfspraul>
let's just wait what he says next
<wolfspraul>
what he wrote to lattice legal is nonsense of course
<wpwrak>
wolfspraul: if there a means to order comments by date ? all i get is that tree view, which makes it almost impossible to find new comments
<wpwrak>
wolfspraul: but there are files claiming they're confidential and proprietary, contradicting what's stated elsewhere ?
<wolfspraul>
well
<wolfspraul>
first of all that guy just must have serious blood pressure problems or something
<wolfspraul>
he is jumping between his arguments so fast that it doesn't make much sense to discuss with him
<wpwrak>
well, that whole comments section is full of aggression
<wolfspraul>
the header file says that you have to have a license from Lattice
<wolfspraul>
that's the style nowadays
<wolfspraul>
the aggression. I've seen worse.
<wpwrak>
naw ... look at hackaday. completely different response
<wolfspraul>
comments sections are totally loosing their value. depressing to see what kinds of people have time for comments nowadays...
<wpwrak>
(for ubb-vga)
<wolfspraul>
so about those files
<wolfspraul>
it says you have to have a license
<wolfspraul>
and we do, like anybody who will download the files from lattice
<wolfspraul>
who do you think wrote the text in LICENSE.LATTICE? :-)
<wpwrak>
oh, so anyone who copies them from us doens't have a license ?
<wolfspraul>
just read LICENSE.LATTICE
<wolfspraul>
it's all their
<wolfspraul>
there
<wolfspraul>
redistribution, source, binary, etc.
<wolfspraul>
and don't start at section 11, start at section 1
<wolfspraul>
:-)
<wolfspraul>
hmm
<wolfspraul>
I just read it and that's not the right one :-)
<wolfspraul>
ok, Appendix C
<wolfspraul>
there should be a fine for not picking established licenses...
<wpwrak>
appendix C says "he Software subject to this Open Source License Agreement is the output files generated by the Provider's LatticeMico32 System."
<wpwrak>
sections 1 through 11 say that you can use their stuff indefinitely (unless you fail to comply with the license), but they don't seem to give you a right to redistribute
<wolfspraul>
yes correct, I was wrong too
<wolfspraul>
Appendix C is the open source part
<wolfspraul>
I guess we need to go throguh the process how the files are downloaded from lattice, and how you eventually come up with those ca. 20 source .v files
<wolfspraul>
our short tempered license friend has emailed lattice legal, which is always good
<wolfspraul>
should we go back into this as well now, or just wait for him first?
<wpwrak>
i don't quite understand appendix C ... what is "the Provider's LatticeMico32 System" exactly ? according to the wording, it's something that generates files, similar to bison generating C source for the parser
<wolfspraul>
we would need to understand where the .v files come from
<wolfspraul>
what makes them covered by the open-source appendix c
<wpwrak>
(ask or wait) dunno. do you think his questions cover what you would ask ?
<wpwrak>
does lekernel have any contact with lattice legal or someone in lattice who could connect them ?
<wolfspraul>
he asks in a strange way, but it doesn't matter, if he gets any response on the subject, it will be helpful
<wolfspraul>
(and if he shares that response with us)
<wolfspraul>
I don't know whether lekernel had direct lattice contact.
<wpwrak>
you may want to contact that pem privately to make sure he keeps you in the loop
<wpwrak>
seems to be difficult to track things on slashdot. besides, he may not care to update an old and stale thread
<wolfspraul>
aha, in CHANGELOG kernel gives his source as mico32_72_linux.tar
<wolfspraul>
that doesn't proove anything of course
<wpwrak>
(communication with lattice) if lekernel doesn't have a channel, you may want to introduce yourself to lic_admn@latticesemi.com, so that they know what you're doing and that they keep you in the loop as well (with a copy to pem, if he lets you have his e-mail address))
<wolfspraul>
honestly I see no need for that right now. let's wait for Sebastien first, maybe he can tell us more about mico32_72_linux.tar
<wpwrak>
sure
<wolfspraul>
if those files are in fact not open source, then they need to be replaced. but that would not be in sync with what I've heard from many people, regarding the open source nature of this core and the core source files.
<wolfspraul>
also, small detail, it's not what lattice themselves are saying right on the open source homepage :-)
<wolfspraul>
which would also be the path to put the generated source files under Appendix C
<wolfspraul>
keep in mind that Lattice wants to push their proprietary peripherals, not the open core
<wolfspraul>
the open core is open, and Appendix C is quite clear about that. but that's not the center of what they offer for download, which makes the genesis of those open source files a bit hard to follow, I guess.
<wpwrak>
(mico builder) okay, that clarifies things a bit
<wolfspraul>
open core, closed peripherals
<wolfspraul>
that was the idea I think
<wolfspraul>
that's why Sebastien doesn't use any of their peripherals, not even the SDRAM controller
<wpwrak>
the license doesn't allow the recipient of the sources/derivative work to redistribute. i.e., the recipient doesn't automatically become a licensee
<wpwrak>
(closed peripheraps) i see
<wolfspraul>
yes but you are quoting from the closed part, or from Appendix C?
<wpwrak>
appendix C
<wpwrak>
i don't see it anywhere say that the recipient of your source also becomes a licensee
<wpwrak>
instead, appendix C says "The Provider grants to You a personal, non-exclusive right [...]"
<wolfspraul>
I think that's true, that would not go down well with the FSF/GPL philosophy :-)
<wpwrak>
yeah
<wolfspraul>
but under 2. you read about right to modify and distribute derivative work
<wolfspraul>
you are saying that right stops at the first recipient?
<wpwrak>
it's implicit. by default, you have no rights
<wpwrak>
that's also what tripped the violators in a few gpl-violations cases
<wolfspraul>
yes and no. anybody can download the same sources from lattice and get the same rights.
<wpwrak>
they boldly claimed that the gpl was invalid and that they were therefore not bound by its terms. the judge simply pointed out that, if the license was indeed invalid, they had no license at all. they left, tail between their legs :)
<wpwrak>
yes, you can do that
<wolfspraul>
and why would lattice give me redistribution rights? which rights am I passing on to my recipients? why do they want me to keep the original copyright notices intact then?
<wpwrak>
which means there's a bit of a time bomb. if lattice decide some day to stop this (or they fold, get bought, etc.), then no new licensee can be created
<wolfspraul>
I understand this problem and it's another problem with the whole open source mico32 license, agreed.
<wpwrak>
the redistribution could be to allow your customers to just read the code
<wolfspraul>
sure
<wolfspraul>
this part is a known limitation/weakness of the openess of mico32
<wpwrak>
so it seems
<wolfspraul>
I think it has very little practical impact though.
<wolfspraul>
the files have been available for anybody to download for 5 years now.
<wolfspraul>
how could anybody not claim to have them downloaded in 2008, even if lattice stopped the downloads in 2014...
<wolfspraul>
but maybe now that we look at all this closer, you understand why I have little hope that quickly contacting lattice legal will improve much
<wolfspraul>
it's a mess!
<wpwrak>
do you need some registration for download ? or do you just grab the files ?
<wolfspraul>
never ever will they clean up all this entangled legal mess simply because some open source project feels uneasy about something
<wpwrak>
(mess) yeah, and often enough, nobody dares to make a change, even if everybody agrees that there's something wrong
<wolfspraul>
I think you need a registration.
<wolfspraul>
it's too intertwined, this will not be cleaned up further
<wpwrak>
so they know who their licensees are
<wolfspraul>
and from a practical standpoint, mico32 is open
<wolfspraul>
they probably have a database, well they shoudl have one :-)
<wolfspraul>
maybe I should download a few copies as sharism, qi, wolfgang, etc. just in case.
<wolfspraul>
hmm, the download just started without any registration
<wpwrak>
nice :)
<wolfspraul>
maybe that comes as part of the installer... the webpage says "license agreement approval required"
<wolfspraul>
and also "account sign-in required", but the download is instant
<wolfspraul>
maybe legal should also talk to the server admins once in a while...
<wolfspraul>
if you wanted to make this all super legal safe, you would go to a notary public, and walk through the entire download process. record it all on video.
<wpwrak>
maybe it's just a program that shows a form and then downloads the real stuff :)
<wolfspraul>
let the notary public sign that everything happened exactly as shown on the video, seal the whole thing, and put the sealed thing to a court as a preemptive protection step
<wolfspraul>
seriously, I've seen this kind of thing happening
<wolfspraul>
once you fight between tough lawyers, all these things will be done
<lekernel>
oh, the usual "closed fpga" troll
<lekernel>
people never learn
<wpwrak>
well, you could ping them, see if they're willing to hear what ails you
<wolfspraul>
lekernel: no there is someone who saw the 'proprietary & confidential' comment in the mico32 rtl .v files
<lekernel>
yes, that too
<wolfspraul>
he probably did a 'grep -ir confidential *' over the source tree
<wpwrak>
sometimes, tehre are actually good and friendly lawyers
<wolfspraul>
oh sure, absolutely.
<lekernel>
tbh I'm not worried about LM32. rewriting that would take what? 1 month? maybe 2?
<wpwrak>
the prop & conf bit is ugly. that really ought to go
<wpwrak>
lekernel: i know you'd say that ;-))
<wpwrak>
s/know/knew/
<wolfspraul>
how did you get to those rtl .v files, where did mico32_72_linux.tar come from?
<wolfspraul>
I guess it's from the Mico System Builder
<lekernel>
it's not going to be worth my time as long as it doesn't go any further than a little troll from time to time
<lekernel>
yes
<wolfspraul>
so those files are covered under Appendix C of LICENSE.LATTICE? (cough, if you remember Appendix C :-))
<wolfspraul>
you must remember Appendix C, you think about every paragraph of that file every day, I'm sure.
<wolfspraul>
I am downloading Diamond 1.2 / Lattice Mico System right now, then I see what happens and how i get to that mico32_72_linux.tar
<wolfspraul>
so far no registration, no nothing. it's downloading (300mb)
<wolfspraul>
lekernel: btw, congratulations that they took your slashdot story!
<wolfspraul>
even though I thought the headline was weak :-)
<wolfspraul>
I'm telling you there are dozens of good stories inside Milkymist, we just need to get them out... This is a great start.
<wolfspraul>
lekernel: did you sign a license agreement with Lattice?
<lekernel>
no
<wolfspraul>
ok, to not waste more of your time, let me walk through this download myself first...
<wolfspraul>
wpwrak: also keep in mind what I said earlier - Lattice went through _A LOT_ of strategic changes in the last 5 years
<wolfspraul>
it sounds like Om from the distance...
<wolfspraul>
that may explain the sometimes contradictory statements and snippets here and there
<wolfspraul>
and the various managers that were behind this or that initiative have all long since been shuffled around, or left, or changed their minds, or whatever
<wpwrak>
wolfspraul: yeah. i've seen funny cases of dead-ended licenses. e.g., once i got information about some ATM board under a "gentleman's agreement" that would let me write a linux driver but i couldn't redistribute the document. fair enough. almost at the same time, another group got the same document under NDA. they also wrote a driver, but cuoldn't distribute their source.
<wolfspraul>
I think mico32 is a safe and good choice as an open core for Milkymist.
<wolfspraul>
those that disagree can do something else, I don't care
<wolfspraul>
when the time comes that the project has gained enough critical mass to support all the various things we are really after, that small core is the least thing anybody would be worried in replacing with a 100% gpl core anyway.
<wolfspraul>
so imho, our priorities and focus are perfectly correct
<wpwrak>
wolfspraul: meanwhile, my stiff went into mainline and is there till the present day, with detailed comments on all the registers and stuff. at the company that made the board, also managers changed. that other group never managed to get out of the NDA, even though it protected no information what wouldn't have been there for everyone to grab, and it greatly diminished the value of that group's work
<wpwrak>
those prop & conf files, are they generated ? or do they come via a different path ?
<wolfspraul>
I think they are from mico32_72_linux.tar, which I think is a result of the mico system builder
<wolfspraul>
and I'm downloading "diamond 1.2" right now, 300 mb, let's see whether that's in there...
<wolfspraul>
I would think that software lets me select peripherals, and then I click 'generate output' or so. we see.
<wpwrak>
the non-propagation of the license may not be such a big deal, but the prop & conf headers probably are. probably not with lattice but certainly with the community. that's kinda like trying to import a product that has "RoHS" and "99% LEAD" printed right next to each other.
<wolfspraul>
I don't think that will change.
<wolfspraul>
I don't think we should edit that header, we should leave it exactly as-is.
<wolfspraul>
if anything we can add a line pointing to the LICENSE file.
<wolfspraul>
or to another file that explains the entire genesis of those source files, and which license applies where
<wolfspraul>
I highly doubt Lattice legal will start any sort of cleanup, but if I'm wrong, even better.
<wpwrak>
do you think there's a risk in asking ?
<wolfspraul>
absolutely not, so it's great that pem did
<wolfspraul>
asking is always good
<wpwrak>
good :)
<wpwrak>
best case outcome would be that they clean it up
<wolfspraul>
I've had cases where the asking backfired, for example Ingenic noticed that they made a mistake (!) in putting the pms on their ftp server.
<wolfspraul>
but let's say that kind of thing can only happen with really stupid companies
<wpwrak>
still an okay outcome would be if they assure you that this is covered by appendix c despite the threatening language
<wolfspraul>
of course
<wpwrak>
neutral would be no change to the status quo
<wolfspraul>
that's what I expect. some legalese that basically says nothing, or things we all immediately agree with.
<wolfspraul>
but... the good thing about our energetic friend is that he worded it like an attack.
<wolfspraul>
sometimes legal has to act if they are notified of some bad thing happening. if they don't, that can later be used against them.
<wpwrak>
(attack) i guess that's all he knows ;-)
<wpwrak>
(moving legal) yes, harder to just sit it out :)
<wolfspraul>
oh they need to be careful to not fall into some trap
<wolfspraul>
let's see what happens
<wolfspraul>
ah, I give up. the rpm I can download is for i386, I don't have one easily.
<wpwrak>
no compatibility libs ?
<wolfspraul>
I don't want to go through a virtual machine and all now only to find out the obvious in the end.
<wpwrak>
;-)
<wolfspraul>
this core and its implementation are open source, Appendig C. done.
<wolfspraul>
:-)
<wolfspraul>
Appendix C
<kristianpaul>
wolfspraul: (license) i see, lets whait a then :-)
<wolfspraul>
someone replied to my post with MOD PARENT UP
<wolfspraul>
does that mean they think I wasn't nice? don't understand what this means :-)
<wolfspraul>
a bit hard to calmly discuss with someone like this guy pem who is jumping to conclusions, jumping from argument to another, reading selectively, etc.
<kristianpaul>
APPENDIX C, yeah
<wolfspraul>
you can see his thought process there
<wolfspraul>
"you said..."
<wolfspraul>
"how can you say ... and then ..."
<wolfspraul>
all in his fantasy world, speaking to himself
<wolfspraul>
kristianpaul: what does MOD PARENT UP mean?