Re: [oc] Inquiry

[sdb@cloud9.net (Stuart Brorson)]

[ . . . .  Big snip of John's informed and valid points . . . .]


> . . . . Designers
> are better not to use a core if they are not prepared to follow the licen=
> sing
> conditions.

Bingo!!!!  You made my point for me!  That's the problem with open cores.

> > However, the GPL makes it difficult to build a business on open source
> > code.
> 
> Maybe the author of the code isn't interested in building a business?
> There are other reasons for doing things in life.

You are right.  I play around with Opencores stuff for fun and to
learn more about FPGA development.   But the original question
involved use of Opencores IP in businesses.

[ . . . . snip . . . . . ]

> I guess the main point I am trying to get across is that I believe that
> Opencores primary purpose should not be to provide zero-cost cores
> for businesses, otherwise it just becomes 'another card in the pack'.
> Plenty of places already exist from which business users can get cores.

The problem with most sources of IP (e.g. Xilinx) is the you get an
encrypted black box, and you pay mucho $$$ for it.  And if the core
doesn't work as advertised (e.g. can't meet timing), you're SOL.  And
don't say that it doesn't happen -- I've seen a good designer (not me)
get fired because he relied upon a Xilinx core (their PL4 core, to be 
exact) to finish his project.  However, he couldn't make it meet
timing against the chip on the other side of the interface 'cause
Xilinx had designed their IP to interoperate with the *other* major
PL4 chip providor.  About the problem, Xilinx said "don't blame us --
it works when we test it" & the entire design -- including the Xilinx
IP and the engineer -- was canned.  Xilinx did manage to collect their
$$$$, however . . . .    

Anyway, my point is that getting cores for free is not the major
reason to use open-source IP.  Rather, an open-source core is superior
to a closed, encrypted core because you can "get under the hood" and
fix it if necessary.  Opencores would make a wonderful source for open
IP,  except that the licensing conditions are antithetical to using
the cores in a larger, proprietary project 

> I would advocate that Opencores should exist to provide cores to
> members of the Opencores community.  If some of these community
> members happen to be businesses, great, but the business point of view
> should not dominate or set the direction of Opencores.  Of course
> this is MY opinion, so you are free to argue against it.

I'm not gonna argue against you 'cause your points are valid given
your assumptions.  If the purpose of Opencores is to provide cores to
hobbiests, or to small design shops who do contract work by modifying
their open-source cores, wonderful.  But Opencores doesn't help the
designer in a large organization who needs to integrate a piece of IP
into his larger FPGA or ASIC.  

Stuart
--
To unsubscribe from cores mailing list please visit http://www.opencores.org/mailinglists.shtml