<wolfspraul>
unfortunately we still have no picture of the m1 in action, but whatever. this release is mostly to go through the exercise of a news release, whether it's picked up or not.
<wolfspraul>
I trust Jon that the actual m1 use and party happened as we all think it did...
<wpwrak>
wolfspraul: i think mm1 day is just today. so it hasn't happened yet
<wolfspraul>
I think it was yesterday (Thursday)
<wolfspraul>
no?
<wolfspraul>
anyway that thing is going out now
<wolfspraul>
:-)
<wpwrak>
you should read the channel backlog ;-)
<wpwrak>
rejon said he had all the other projects to worry about so far and only today will he focus on mm1
<wpwrak>
if you want to release this now, they you should at least reword is as a belated announcement of an upcoming presentation
<wpwrak>
of course, this would have made a lot more sense had it been posted several days if not weeks before, as i suggested ;-)
<wolfspraul>
call it the chaos of the newsroom, I've finished my edits and it's out now
<wolfspraul>
this is it
<wolfspraul>
:-)
<wolfspraul>
I don't expect a huge uptake anyway out of this, it's more to run through the exercise once, and remind some journalists that Milkymist exists/is still around.
<wpwrak>
i think i'll spare you my opinion on the logic of all this ;-)
<wolfspraul>
yay, this is pretty close to real news now!
<wolfspraul>
:-)
<wolfspraul>
why do you think it's all so completely wrong :-)
<wolfspraul>
I've added some nice screenshots, we have a nice template, we have Jon's quote
<wolfspraul>
only thing missing is picture of m1@lgm
<wolfspraul>
which according to wpwrak is an impossible thing to have because it's a picture from the future :-)
<wpwrak>
yeah. either you report about the past, you try to predict the future, or you write a work of fiction :)
<wpwrak>
by the way, the screenshots, while nice, all suffer the problem of not showing input (or if they do, it's not clear that they do)
<wolfspraul>
correct, because I have no better screenshots right now
<wpwrak>
specifically, there's no indication that effects are modulated by incoming audio, and there's no indication that effects can manipulate and respond to incoming video
<wolfspraul>
sure, the audio thing could only become more clear in a whole video
<wolfspraul>
which would be great to have, but it requires vp8/theora support in the fpga...
<wolfspraul>
or maybe we find some vga grabber in the meantime
<wolfspraul>
and for video, well we simply don't have them yet
<wolfspraul>
there is one screenshot where it's more or less obvious, I just titled it 'me' :-)
<wpwrak>
this is something that also came up in the /. comments. people are having a hard time understanding what the product does, not only because it's an oddball thing with vj and fpga rolled into one, but also because its feature set is unclear
<wpwrak>
e.g., those images could very well come from some C64 lovers convention
<wolfspraul>
looks like a picture from a Bosnian mass grave to me, but I like it
<wolfspraul>
well the really weird thing of the news release is that a picture of m1 in action at lgm is missing
<wolfspraul>
maybe I can still get one a little later, then I will fit it in
<wpwrak>
"me" doesn't make this very obvious. you can interpret that this is a modification of incoming video but it may very well also be something synthetic
<wpwrak>
(and even monochrome)
<wolfspraul>
I'm not so worried about the slashdot comments
<wolfspraul>
those guys cannot be converted into buyers, no matter what, imho
<wolfspraul>
or even into contributors
<wpwrak>
i think the /. comments are useful for finding holes in the story
<wolfspraul>
we need to get the product in front of real music lovers
<wolfspraul>
or people interested in playing with video
<wolfspraul>
and in the slashdot comments they do show through here and there
<wolfspraul>
some airmchair general saying "bla bla bla", and then the response "you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm a musician and I ..."
<wpwrak>
yes, and then they comment that this is something that was state of the art a decade or longer ago
<wolfspraul>
especially the theorists that are comparing specs, yes
<wpwrak>
of course, these too :)
<wolfspraul>
if you go to really creative people, they work with all sorts of stuff, decades old. who cares. the result matters, and being quick, and expressing yourself, and getting things done.
<wolfspraul>
just go to any studio
<wolfspraul>
may look like a museum to some
<wolfspraul>
so what...
<wpwrak>
no, but there are several comments that sound as if the intention was friendly, yet the people still don't see a particularly desirable product
<wolfspraul>
sure. we need to get that across.
<wpwrak>
and it's usually because the feature set is under-advertized
<wolfspraul>
correct
<wolfspraul>
big marketing challenge
<wolfspraul>
accessories are not clear either
<wolfspraul>
it's all way too abstract right now
<wpwrak>
maybe make a (synthetic) picture as follows:
<wpwrak>
- MM1 in the middle
<wolfspraul>
which is partially also because the whole thing is still develping so quickly
<wolfspraul>
update over ethernet - wip
<wolfspraul>
accessories list - not finalized, sourcing, evaluating, thinking
<wpwrak>
- visible "live" people (crowd on the dance floor, etc. can be symbolized)
<wolfspraul>
box - not started yet
<wolfspraul>
manual/tutorial - impossible to start because too many features still changing
<wolfspraul>
twitterwall - just added last week or so, I never saw it in action
<wpwrak>
- an image that applies some good-looking effect on the "live" image
<wolfspraul>
I see the glass half full, I think there were some good comments on slashdot
<wpwrak>
- arrows from the "live" image and from audio (put speaker, a dj's mixer table, microphone, etc., as visual indicator)
<wolfspraul>
my friend pem is already calling me an asshole now though :-)
<wpwrak>
- arrow to the generated/merged image
<wolfspraul>
he continues to be the master at jumping to conclusions, skipping over steps in his thought process, etc. fun guy.
<wpwrak>
(pam) have you established a communication channel with him outside the /. comment section ?
<wpwrak>
s/pam/pem/
<wolfspraul>
he said "assholes like you have given open source such a bad name"
<wolfspraul>
:-)
<wpwrak>
pem = psychotic egomaniac misfit ?
<wolfspraul>
he doesn't even see the irony, oh well
<wolfspraul>
nah, no communication channel
<wolfspraul>
he did something useful, pointing to the proprietary/confidential headers
<wolfspraul>
everything else from him is rubbish
<wpwrak>
have you established communication with lattice legal then ?
<wolfspraul>
no, I wait for pem
<wolfspraul>
this is all a no-issue imho
<wolfspraul>
total nonsense
<wolfspraul>
lattice legal will not get into this
<wolfspraul>
if pem doesn't want to use Mico32, I think nobody will care less than lattice :-)
<wpwrak>
his objective is mud wrestling. if you don't establish a non-public channel, you will not get anything from him
<wolfspraul>
I don't need it.
<wolfspraul>
I think we should leave the header as-is.
<wpwrak>
you still have the issue of the problem headers
<wolfspraul>
nobody is proud of the mico32 core anyway, it's just something open source we took and built an soc around it.
<wolfspraul>
there is no problem, aside from the license being a maze
<wolfspraul>
it is very clear in my mind that those sources are considered 'open source', including use, modification, manufacturing, by Lattice
<wolfspraul>
what we are doing now is climbing around those legal constructs, for no good
<wolfspraul>
I'm not happy about them, they should be clearly BSD/MIT/APache or GPL. but that won't happen.
<wpwrak>
very well, but it's lattice's explicit statement, right on top of them, that they aren't
<wolfspraul>
the statement says you need a license
<wolfspraul>
LICENSE.LATTICE
<wolfspraul>
theoretically we have a long wish list for lattice legal :-)
<wolfspraul>
1) release those files directly, downloadable from lattice.com without registration, without being the output generated from proprietary software
<wolfspraul>
2) use an established license, not a new one. Apache/MIT/BSD.
<wolfspraul>
3) cleanup the headers to reflect all this
<wolfspraul>
won't happen though, waste of time
<wpwrak>
you see a nice piece of green. you know it's a public space and that in your city, walking over public spaces is permitted for anyone. there's a sign "no trespassing. trespassers will be shot without warning.". will you feel confident marching over it ?
<wolfspraul>
it won't change
<wolfspraul>
take it or leave it
<wolfspraul>
there are tons of people picknicking on that space, btw
<wolfspraul>
but of course you are free to not join them because of the signs
<wpwrak>
will you feel confident sending others over this area ?
<wolfspraul>
and the owner of the space made clear in a big ceremony with the mayor that anybody could use the space
<wolfspraul>
he just forgot to take down the stupid signs
<wolfspraul>
absolutely, of course
<wpwrak>
well, if it's so clear-cut, you should be able to work out a solution with lattice
<wolfspraul>
don't underestimate bureaucracy
<wolfspraul>
this is Lattice _LEGAL_ :-)
<wolfspraul>
it has that name for a reason
<wolfspraul>
the mico32 core, based on the open source license, is used in many products
<wolfspraul>
it's so obvious that this core was released as 'open source' imo
<wolfspraul>
just read the mico32 homepage on lattice.com ... we discussed it before.
<wolfspraul>
the intention is clear
<wolfspraul>
the wording and precise implementation is unfortunate
<wolfspraul>
also with the mico32 system builder download, generated files, etc. etc.
<wolfspraul>
all bad
<wolfspraul>
won't change though
<wolfspraul>
maybe if google would come and say "we don't use the mico32 core in an upcoming chip unless you clean this all up", they would do it
<wolfspraul>
for us - never
<wolfspraul>
we can take it or leave it, they won't care
<wpwrak>
you're just trying to weasle around addressing the issue. people like pem put their criticism in words that make it difficult to agree with them, but the problem is a fairly clear one
<wolfspraul>
there is no problem
<wolfspraul>
those that see one cannot join
<wolfspraul>
the party on the public space continues...
<wolfspraul>
the only solution would be to switch to another core
<wolfspraul>
it's 8000 lines of code
<wolfspraul>
if milkymist is successful, it will be replaced one day
<wpwrak>
well. lattice themselves tell me that something is proprietary and confidential. wolfgang who doesn't even talk to lattice tells me it isn't. wolfgang wants to sell me a product that he can only sell if what he says about lattice's work is true. he can't sell the product if what lattice themselves say about their work is true. now, seriously, why should i believe this guy ?
<wpwrak>
you have a big credibility problem there
<wolfspraul>
you know that you take 1 word out of context
<wolfspraul>
if you want to do that it's your problem
<wolfspraul>
2 words that is
<wpwrak>
why should i invest my time and money into a technology where a major IP issue that came up right after a few hours of people looking into it is deal with nothing but denial ?
<wolfspraul>
if you start reading from teh homepage, and you walk through the exercise, it is clear that those files are covered under a bsd-like open-source license, including manufacturing rights
<wolfspraul>
it is not a major IP issue
<wolfspraul>
only for the paranoid
<wolfspraul>
you take 2 words out of context
<wolfspraul>
that's a major problem for those that do it
<wolfspraul>
the real question is this:
<wolfspraul>
have we misunderstood lattice?
<wolfspraul>
is there a risk in lattice using legal action against open source users of the mico32 core?
<wolfspraul>
those are the real questions
<wolfspraul>
(to me)
<wpwrak>
what i'm saying is that your story is weak. so weak that you're even afraid of contacting lattice legal to see if this can be resolved.
<wolfspraul>
I agree with the problem to newcomers.
<wolfspraul>
not afraid, waste of time
<wolfspraul>
afraid people will have another 100 things to be afraid of
<wolfspraul>
"reverse engineering fpgas is illegal"
<wolfspraul>
"this is all patented"
<wolfspraul>
etc. etc.
<wolfspraul>
I agree that it's unfortunate, and bad for newcomers.
<wpwrak>
you spend months making that product, spend days arguing about why this isn't an issue, but you're completely overwhelmed by the task of writing a short mail to lattice legal to inquire ?
<wpwrak>
there are plenty of other small issues, agreed
<wpwrak>
but this is a quite in-the-face contradiction
<wolfspraul>
if the probability of progress in one activity is 1%, and in the other 0%, then you can still do the one with a 1% progress probability at infinite and do the right thing
<wolfspraul>
so even if we discuss this another 1000 hours, the 10 minutes to email lattice legal are still a waste of time
<wolfspraul>
you understand that the issue is entirely absurd?
<wolfspraul>
if the mico32 core is indeed 'confidential and proprietary', then all lattice webpages talking about it would be badly misleading
<wolfspraul>
don't you think?
<wolfspraul>
this header is a result of the stupid mico32 system builder code generation
<wolfspraul>
which raises a whole rats nest of legal issues anyway
<wolfspraul>
registration, running proprietary software, license for that proprietary software, and so on
<wolfspraul>
so the issue is not that 1 line in the header
<wolfspraul>
the issue is the whole genesis of those files
<wpwrak>
no. mailing lattice legal can strengthen your argument. if they simply ignore you, you can say that a) there the license granting you these right, and b) lattice have for all practical purposed abandoned the project
<wolfspraul>
what do you think we should ask lattice?
<wolfspraul>
if anything, the best would be if they could offer just the sources for download directly
<wolfspraul>
but that won't happen, ever
<wolfspraul>
the lawyers cannot even do it, because those files are output files generated by the system builder, and so on
<wolfspraul>
and all downloads require a registration too, it seems
<wolfspraul>
ask them to allow us to change this header?
<wolfspraul>
ask them to write a new license for us?
<wolfspraul>
ask them to create a new tarball with new license, and email that to us as an attachment?
<wolfspraul>
seriously. nothing will ever happen.
<wolfspraul>
ask for a clarification? which clarification exactly?
<wolfspraul>
the mico32 system builder makes it very difficult to address the real issue
<wpwrak>
tell them that you're using their core in a open source product. tell them that you're using it because of announcement (link) and license. tell them that you noticed the inconsistency in the files that are subject to the license. tell them this is a problem, because you cannot make an authoritative representation of lattice's legal position on this before your customers on lattice's behalf. ask them how this can be solved.
<wolfspraul>
which is an issue of discomfort on our side, not so much a legal issue
<wolfspraul>
well. except for crazy people like pem, everybody would take the lattice mico32 homepage to be an 'authoritative representation', no?
<wolfspraul>
whereas pem of course dimissed it right away, trying to find something he can start his rant on
<wpwrak>
a statement that these files are indeed to be considered as open source as of appendix c irrespective of what their header says would already be sufficient. particularly if they allow you to post this publicly.
<wolfspraul>
have you read the mico32 homepage?
<wpwrak>
does the home page mention specifically the files with the conflicting terms ?
<wpwrak>
or does it just talk about the bundle
<wolfspraul>
you have to be pretty paranoid to dismiss that as wrong (!), and then get stuck on some lines that are a result of the automatic code generation process, and clearly superseded by the license file
<wpwrak>
does it say that every last bit in the bundle is open source ?
<wolfspraul>
of course not
<wpwrak>
see
<wolfspraul>
but you talk about 'authoritative representation'
<wolfspraul>
for whom now?
<wolfspraul>
for a lawyer?
<wolfspraul>
for a paranoid engineer?
<wolfspraul>
for a layman, the issue is clear
<wpwrak>
towards your customers, distributors, etc.
<wolfspraul>
unless your paranoia level is somewhere at 9/10 or 10/10, this would never come up
<wolfspraul>
mico32 is used in many places
<wpwrak>
instead of giving them clear evidence, you're asking them to make a judgment call about the intentions of parties they don't know
<wolfspraul>
(under the open source license)
<wolfspraul>
the best evidence I have is the mico32 homepage, and license.lattice appendix c
<wolfspraul>
if that's not enough, sorry I cannot help any further. they need to go elsewhere.
<wpwrak>
maybe they're all in violation of the license and lattice just hasn't bothered to attack them yet
<wolfspraul>
oh, other evidence is that if you google, you will find many others agreeing with that position. (which of course pem immediately dismissed as well)
<wolfspraul>
of course, possible
<wolfspraul>
no risk no fun
<wolfspraul>
it's a paranoid argument
<wpwrak>
no, really. what you need is a statement from lattice. if the situation is as clear as you think it is, that should be no problem
<wolfspraul>
maybe google has hidden some patents in vp8
<wolfspraul>
we won't get that
<wolfspraul>
so we have only 2 options:
<wpwrak>
if legal stonewalls, you can also ask them for a contact that can make a decision
<wolfspraul>
1) use mico32
<wolfspraul>
2) replace it with something else
<wpwrak>
is 2) a realistic option with the present release schedule ?
<wpwrak>
i don't think you have an alternative to 1). else you wouldn't afraid of approaching lattice legal.
<wolfspraul>
oh sure I think #1 is totally fine and great
<wolfspraul>
this is a completely idiotic issue
<wolfspraul>
similar to "there are hidden patents in xxx"
<wpwrak>
and i think (leaving rethorics aside now) you are afraid. namely that they tell you in more or less clear terms these files aren't as Free as they seem to be
<wolfspraul>
argh :-) that's about the last thing.
<wpwrak>
but see the positive side. if lattice choose to maintain this threat, then this also strengthens the motivation for 2)
<wolfspraul>
you don't seem to understand how many people have made this potentially wrong assessment then
<wolfspraul>
it's not just about qi/milkymist and mico32
<wolfspraul>
it's about lattice vs. world
<wolfspraul>
do you think we are the first ones to use the mico32 core, open source or proprietary (but under the os license)?
<wolfspraul>
you have to admit that your theory is quite paranoid
<wolfspraul>
please keep the mico32 homepage in mind
<wpwrak>
well, there are numerous companies that use gpl-licensed software yet blatantly violate the gpl. most of then probably haven't even heard that you can get successfully sued for that ;-)
<wolfspraul>
should I quote from it?
<wolfspraul>
if Lattice turns around and sends Sebastien or qi-hardware.com a cease-and-desist letter, that would be awesome
<wolfspraul>
we could turn that into news for Milkymist for months
<wolfspraul>
but it's all completely nonsense, I'm sure. I won't do more in this direction, it's just too stupid for me.
<wpwrak>
as an example of one entrepreneur choosing to ignore an obvious warning sign and getting burned for it ?
<wolfspraul>
please let's focus on reality. reality is that they opened the core, while keeping a lot of peripherals closed.
<wpwrak>
where were the news for months about openmoko vs. sisvel ? ;-)
<wolfspraul>
so milkymist doesn't use any of those peripherals
<wolfspraul>
they were hoping for wider adoption of the open core
<wpwrak>
if it's all so clear, why don't you ask lattice to confirm this ?
<wolfspraul>
this is all no news, this is what they've been doing since 2006
<wpwrak>
you're contradicting yourself
<wolfspraul>
no I've always said the same thing, which is that it's clear imo
<wolfspraul>
only unfortunate and legally irrelevant snippets from the code generation process
<wolfspraul>
which are superseded by the license agreement
<wpwrak>
either it's perfectly clear, without room for interpretation. then you'll have your answer quickly enough.
<wolfspraul>
perfectly clear to me
<wolfspraul>
and won't get an answer either
<wolfspraul>
the header is unfortunate though, for newcomers
<wolfspraul>
that is sad
<wpwrak>
the only certain way for not getting an answer is not asking :)
<wpwrak>
well, actually it isn't
<wolfspraul>
pem already helped us
<wolfspraul>
they have to contact us now, if there is an issue
<wolfspraul>
if they don't - all clear
<wpwrak>
what will happen instead is that the likes of pem will communicate with lattice on your behalf, bringing all their social skills and balanced views of the issues at hand into the conversation
<wolfspraul>
no problem, he talks to legal
<wolfspraul>
they are used to people who are a little hot tempered :-)
<wolfspraul>
let's do this: I wait another 1-2 weeks, and then I send a friendly email to that address as well.
<wolfspraul>
how about that?
<wpwrak>
they don't have to contact "us". they only have to answer to pem. you haven't even established a communication channel with that guy.
<wolfspraul>
I don't want to be in one boat with this social outcast.
<wpwrak>
heh ;-)
<wpwrak>
but you should ask him to pass on whatever he gets from them
<wolfspraul>
no but he pointed them to their 'confidential' source file on a qi-hardware.com server
<wolfspraul>
so if that is a problem to lattice legal, they HAVE TO go after that server
<wolfspraul>
they cannot just tell pem "it's bad", and not go after the server. that would be a big mistake that lattice legal will never make.
<wolfspraul>
I wait 1-2 weeks
<wolfspraul>
I ahve nothing to do with this guy.
<wolfspraul>
then I will write them a friendly mail asking for a cleanup (need to think what I actually want though)
<wolfspraul>
I will cc you, how about that? :-)
<wolfspraul>
there is no way in this world that this email will lead to _ANYTHING_
<wolfspraul>
if I loose, the next Asado in Buenos Aires is on me, all meat, everything
<wpwrak>
i'll start looking for some fine winery then ;-)
<wpwrak>
the problem with leaving this hanging in the open is that anyone can make up their own interpretations, however it suits their motives.
<wpwrak>
getting this cleared up, at least a bit more, is just about the same as making sure your device meets FCC/CE emission standards
<wolfspraul>
it's not hanging in the open
<wpwrak>
it's inconvenient and may not really add any value for you, but it's necessary nevertheless, to protect those who use/sell your product
<wolfspraul>
it's about as much 'hanging in the open' as people saying the GPL is unconstitutional, or saying whatever
<wolfspraul>
it's really really far fetched this theory
<wolfspraul>
there is a whole big license
<wolfspraul>
there is an even bigger homepage
<wolfspraul>
I am sure there are press releases
<wolfspraul>
but then you find two words and you think they are overriding everything else?
<wolfspraul>
INSANITY
<wolfspraul>
:-)
<wolfspraul>
why do those 2 words override everything else?
<wolfspraul>
totally idiotic, really
<wpwrak>
well, let's say i put a big text "all the code i write is open source" on my web page. then you and i agree, just among ourselves, that i write a bit of closed source for you. would my broad public announcement supersede the specific private contract ?
<wolfspraul>
what I am really interested in whether there is a massive misunderstanding here
<wolfspraul>
but in the tech industry, that must be one of the biggest misunderstands ever
<wolfspraul>
I don't care about crazy arguments like "oh my god, there is a word 'confidential' here, did you see that? this word clearly has super-power and overrides everything else"
<wpwrak>
no, but having that word on the file it apples to overrides some general statement elsewhere
<wolfspraul>
we are not discussing a release that was made yesterday, it was made in 2006
<wpwrak>
particularly since it's on public record that you're aware of this
<wolfspraul>
oh no. the files go on to mention that you need a license to use this file.
<wolfspraul>
even better (public record). the whole world thinks the mico32 core is 'open source'.
<wolfspraul>
2 weeks, I send a short and nice mail
<wolfspraul>
gotta go now
<wpwrak>
a pretty big part of the world believes in creationism and similar concepts. so what does that prove ? ;-)
<wolfspraul>
wpwrak: let's focus on reality - core vs. peripherals
<wolfspraul>
some peripherals are closed
<wolfspraul>
before emailing them, I would probably need to study the mico32 system builder closer, argh
<wolfspraul>
unless I want to write stupid mails like pem does
<wpwrak>
can't hurt to do this cleanly. maybe you'll even find more spots in need of clarification.
<wolfspraul>
and all this has no legal or economic value, only to satisfy the paranoid, even more argh :-)
<wpwrak>
companies opening a previously closed product with homebrewn licenses are fun, aren;t they ? ;-)
<wolfspraul>
exactly
<wolfspraul>
that's what happened here
<wolfspraul>
you know this, I know this
<wolfspraul>
there is no way Lattice would 'retract' the 'open core'
<wolfspraul>
but unfortunately they will also not clean it up, I'm sure
<wolfspraul>
it's too difficult
<wolfspraul>
once you got this wrong at the beginning, it stays wrong
<wolfspraul>
we should have emailed them in 2005 or 2006
<wolfspraul>
there are way too many customers relying on this open core now
<wpwrak>
i also know that companies aren't necessarily as stubborn as they may seem. but you may have to be persistent, because things can easily get dropped on the floor, simply because someone couldn't figure out what to do and then forgets
<wolfspraul>
everybody would be worried if they even changed 1 word
<wolfspraul>
bbl
<wpwrak>
i've seen this happen at philips. there was that big webcam issue with a driver in the linux kernel
<topi`>
hi. is sebastien here?
<topi`>
i'm interested about the milkymist board design. how big a footprint does the latticeMico32 core eat from the LX45?
<wpwrak>
may be a bit hard to catch sebastien today. he's traveling, had an event yesterday in amsterdam and one tomorrow in paris.
<kristianpaul>
wolfspraul: (like only first two) not only, but seems for me the most interesting, not winamp-like too much :-)
<kristianpaul>
terpstra: ping
<kristianpaul>
I wonder if you read the entire backlog about lattice "open source license here..
<kristianpaul>
In any case, do have have similar concern about this topic?
<wolfspraul>
kristianpaul: yes agreed, they are definitely the most interesting.
<kristianpaul>
terpstra: I'm hoping you may be a legal team also there ;-)
<wolfspraul>
I think once we focus to document all patches we already have with screenshots, and we focus on generating interesting shots with the camera, and then we focus on new interesting patches, then it should be really cool :-)
<kristianpaul>
(camera) yeah, i need take real screenshots, also i have the black cloth now
<wolfspraul>
trust me, if cern asks their lawyer about this, they will start reading documentation and legal matters from the beginning, not from somewhere inside after doing a 'grep' :-)
<wolfspraul>
and if they do that, they will come to the inevitable conclusion. but... the more eyes...
<kristianpaul>
Thats true (grep paranoid)
<juliusb_>
where's lekernel?
<juliusb_>
i hvae a question about revision control of cores in milkymist
<juliusb_>
i want to do something like that for orpsoc
<juliusb_>
or at least, detecting the version is what at runtime
<wpwrak>
juliusb_: he must be somewhere between amsterdam and paris :)
<juliusb_>
ah, hard life
<juliusb_>
:)
<lekernel>
hi
<lekernel>
azonenberg: what platform?
<lekernel>
(with spartan 3a/6/virtex)
<lekernel>
"It seems there are a lot of people (here at least) who seem to have some very fundamental disagreements with other people making a nice product." lol
<wpwrak>
lekernel: it's called "penis envy" ;-)
<kristianpaul>
no, la donacion es opcinal ud elije cuanto pagar
<kristianpaul>
argg
<kristianpaul>
sorry
<azonenberg>
lekernel: the softcore MIPS i'm practicing verilog on
<lekernel>
well I think you can definitely do 1080p on spartan6
<lekernel>
if you use the serializers you can reach 1 ghz/pin
<kristianpaul>
okay, even the system config in flickernoise is "linked" to graphics...