Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Instruction Sets Should Be Free: The Case for RISC-V [pdf] (2014)

www2.eecs.berkeley.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–105 of 105 posts

Re: Instruction Sets Should Be Free: The Case for RISC-V [pdf] (2014)

#101

Post by [deleted] »

brucehoult wrote: post #97
klelatti wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Apple is an Arm founder. The comment implies, though, that they get a special deal because they are a founder. Neither Wikipedia nor the linked articles say that. There won't be a source because the details of the current commercial contract between Apple and Arm will be highly confidential. In any event, it's vanishingly unlikely that Apple gets some special unique rights to IP created in the 2000s as a result…

Also this deal until 2040 (signed nine months ago) is crazy. I can't imagine why Apple would sign such a thing unless they got really phenomenal terms. And why would Arm give such amazing terms? Not because Apple was an Arm founder 35 years ago. It's probably because Apple showed Arm a prototype of a Mac or iPhone running on "Apple Silicon gen 2" aka RISC-V.

[deleted]

Re: Instruction Sets Should Be Free: The Case for RISC-V [pdf] (2014)

#102

Post by snvzz »

pjmlp wrote: post #69
gregw2 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stupid?! The type of reader paying $500/year for the Microprocessor Report (where this response article appeared) already knew. (Similarly if they were motivated to get it free or took time to read it through their university, company, pirate it, etc.) And the ARM response you'll didn't mention RISC-V by name specifically. The notion of an open source entity building an open or semi-open ecosystem cannibalizing even…

And 40 years later, after FOSS folks thought to have won, everyone is going with open core, finally realising why businesses don't want anything to do with GPL like licensing. So anyone that thinks RISC-V isn't going to trail a similar path, is fooling themselves.

>everyone

For some definition of everyone.

Re: Instruction Sets Should Be Free: The Case for RISC-V [pdf] (2014)

#103

Post by hakfoo »

ginko wrote: post #20
ysofunny wrote: post #19

free instruction sets: this "langauge" should be spoken by all! a public ISA private instruction sets: this is a private matter, restricted to a need-to-know basis. private ISA the main difference is the private one can sneak in magic backdoor instructions, lost in the vastness of a 2^bit_depth space which is better for a languge? to be spoken used and known by many? or to be unkown and obscure? the funky business is…

>the main difference is the private one can sneak in magic backdoor instructions, lost in the vastness of a 2^bit_depth space There's nothing keeping an implementation of a public ISA from adding backdoors.

The value of the public ISA then is that you can implement your own conformant version if you're super paranoid.

If the US is terrified that Chinese RISC-V processors have backdoors, they're free to manufacture their own version with their preferred assortment of bavkdoors instead. The software should remain compatible.

Re: Instruction Sets Should Be Free: The Case for RISC-V [pdf] (2014)

#104

Post by xacky »

pjmlp wrote: post #89
klelatti wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Narrator: There was no source.

Nah, I just don't want to baby feed people on the Internet. https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/09/how-arm-has-alrea... https://appleinsider.com/articles/08/07/30/arm_reports_finge...

You should be ashamed of yourself. I hope you have your own business or are you "baby fed" by your boss.

Re: Instruction Sets Should Be Free: The Case for RISC-V [pdf] (2014)

#105

Post by brucehoult »

snvzz wrote: post #102
pjmlp wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And 40 years later, after FOSS folks thought to have won, everyone is going with open core, finally realising why businesses don't want anything to do with GPL like licensing. So anyone that thinks RISC-V isn't going to trail a similar path, is fooling themselves.

>everyone For some definition of everyone.

I'm not even sure what side he thinks he is on. RISC-V isn't an open core, it's an open specification of the interface (only) between hardware and software. And it's not GPL, it's CC-BY-4.0 (BSD/MIT-like).
Post reply on HN