Xilinx Microblaze copyrights question

[Hesham Moustafa]

OK for now I have a Hello World port working, using a very little code
for UART_RS232 IP (two functions send/receive and UART register
definitions) which I believe there is a similar code for it on RTEMS
somewhere. Should I (or anyone of you) create a thread on Xilinx
forums to discuss about that issue?

On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org> wrote:
> On 31/01/2015 8:32 am, Peter Dufault wrote:
>>
>> The wording is very bizarre:
>>
>> "Except as otherwise provided in a valid license issued to you by Xilinx,
>> and to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law: (1) THESE MATERIALS
>> ARE MADE AVAILABLE "AS IS" AND WITH ALL FAULTS, AND XILINX HEREBY DISCLAIMS
>> ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY..."
>>
>> If there is no other valid license the source is made available "AS IS".
>> But what does "made available" mean?  How can it be used?  They then go on
>> to restrict their liability, making it plain it is expected that the code
>> will be used without the "other valid license".  To further add to that
>> expectation they specifically mention situations where it can't be used
>> under any circumstances.
>>
>> I wouldn't want to hazard a guess as to what this mess legally means.
>> This is a "I'll have my cake and eat it too, please" copyright.  I'm sure an
>> aggressive lawyer would have a field day with it.
>>
>> Yes, the code should be avoided if there isn't another "valid license"
>> somewhere that clarifies things.  Has part of the RTEMS discussion with
>> Xilinx specifically asking for an appropriate "valid license" and providing
>> a suggested one?  That's the tack I'd take.
>>
>
> Here is the long version.
>
> In my view the key issue is the confidential statement and the fact you have
> to have downloaded an SDK to obtain the code and the SDK is covered by a EUL
> you must agree too.
>
> My understanding is Xilinx and their lawyers are concerned about their code
> being used on devices that are not make by Xilinx which is an understandable
> position to take given the investment they have made. Code placed into RTEMS
> is free for people to take a use and the RTEMS project cannot determine if
> the code is only being used on Xilinx devices therefore we are never sure we
> comply.
>
> My personal view is the code we are wishing to leverage and use has low IP
> value and is often just register definitions or device set up described in
> publicly available documentation. The benefits to projects like ours is the
> ability to bring up a new device quickly with vendor tested code. Limiting
> the access to this code raises the cost of entry for new devices and in this
> specific case it is hurting the Microblaze. We cannot use the Linux version
> of the code because it is GPL.
>
> The Microblaze and Zynq are a little more complex due to the programmable
> logic side of things. A complex projects using these devices will need to
> integrate with the programmable logic tools from Xilinx, eg Vivado. The flow
> on effect here is these tools are designed to match up with the Xilinx SDK.
> If we cannot use or access this code we run the risk of breaking when the
> tools are upgraded. Xilinx have in the past had a loose coupling between the
> hardware tools and the SDK and have been able to move and change things as
> they needed too. Xilinx understand they need to find a way to define a clear
> and solid interface between the hardware tools and the SDK. My hope is the
> RTEMS project can work with Xilinx in this area and be a part of this work.
>
> There is real demand for RTEMS on these Xilinx devices which is really good
> news so we need to keep moving and this means we need to develop clean code
> for now.
>
> Chris