Is xilinx source code license ok with rtems?

Robert S. Grimes rsg at alum.mit.edu
Tue Feb 27 14:40:41 UTC 2007


Hi Keith,

Your analysis of the Xilinx drivers agrees with mine.  I also believe we
should find a way to make this work.  It would seem the issues are
segregating the RTEMS from the Xilinx code.  Certainly if you do that,
and thus require having the Xilinx EDK, we are clearly not in violation
of Xilinx' licensing.  And by not including the Xilinx code in the RTEMS
tree, we are not violating the RTEMS licensing (IMHO). 

There are two potential problems I can think of.  First, the RTEMS
Steering Committee may object to this approach, as it relies on
third-party code that doesn't meet RTEMS' licensing requirements.
However, given your observation about how Xilinx' one caveat is really a
non-issue, and quite reasonable, this might be a reasonable exception.

The other issue is maintenance, as RTEMS and Xilinx code bases evolve. 
Given all the complexities in a Virtex design (functionally identical
FPGA configurations are not necessarily identical!), I'm not sure this
is actually any worse.  I plan to use the Vendor Drop model for RTEMS
and the Xilinx drivers to manage this for my projects, for what it's worth.

Just my take on the issue...

-Bob

Keith Robertson wrote:
> I'm about to write the rtems networking driver for the xilinx temac 
> 'hard core' emac present in the virtex 4.
>
> Turns out that xilinx provides a number of drivers intended to be 
> independent of an RTOS and could be utilised by a rtems adaptor driver. 
>     From an initial glance through the documentation and headers it 
> appears this low level driver might be an appropriate fit with the rtems 
> networking subsystem.  It's probably not hard to write a layer on top of 
> this rtems code that integrates into the rtems networking framework.
>
> I'd like this driver to be included in the proposed virtex ppc bsp.  So 
> before I go any further I'd like to find out if the license below is 
> suitable to include in rtems.
>
> To my eyes, the license seems ok, except possibly for the clause "soley 
> for use in developing programs and solutions for _xilinx devices_" 
> (emphasis mine).
>
> As using this driver _requires_ one to have a xilinx device, this seems 
> not to be a problem.  However, the rtems source base is obviously larger 
> than just the one bsp.  Are there any negative implications here?
>
> Comments very much appreciated.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Keith
>
> P.S.  Xilinx license follows:
>
> /******************************************************************************
> *
> *       XILINX IS PROVIDING THIS DESIGN, CODE, OR INFORMATION "AS IS"
> *       AS A COURTESY TO YOU, SOLELY FOR USE IN DEVELOPING PROGRAMS AND
> *       SOLUTIONS FOR XILINX DEVICES.  BY PROVIDING THIS DESIGN, CODE,
> *       OR INFORMATION AS ONE POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS FEATURE,
> *       APPLICATION OR STANDARD, XILINX IS MAKING NO REPRESENTATION
> *       THAT THIS IMPLEMENTATION IS FREE FROM ANY CLAIMS OF INFRINGEMENT,
> *       AND YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ANY RIGHTS YOU MAY REQUIRE
> *       FOR YOUR IMPLEMENTATION.  XILINX EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY
> *       WARRANTY WHATSOEVER WITH RESPECT TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE
> *       IMPLEMENTATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTIES OR
> *       REPRESENTATIONS THAT THIS IMPLEMENTATION IS FREE FROM CLAIMS OF
> *       INFRINGEMENT, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
> *       FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
> *
> *       (c) Copyright 2005-2006 Xilinx Inc.
> *       All rights reserved.
> *
> ******************************************************************************/
> _______________________________________________
> rtems-users mailing list
> rtems-users at rtems.com
> http://rtems.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-users
>
>
>   



More information about the users mailing list