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

71–80 of 105 posts

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

#71

Post by pjmlp »

eschaton wrote: post #63
bdowling wrote: post #26

Would copying an instruction set and ABI to make an interoperable processor and system be fair use in light of Google v. Oracle (2021) [0][1]? [0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_... . Edit: Changed phrasing of question. Also, to be clear I think the answer is probably yes.

It would in light of decades of case law prior to Google v. Oracle. An instruction set itself is not protectable IP, only descriptions and implementations are. What restricts new implementations are: 1. Existing legal agreements, eg if you agree in a contract that you will treat an instruction set as protectable IP, you’d be violating the contract. (Assuming the contract is valid.) 2. Patents, if you need to violate…

Which in the end is what allowed AMD to come up with AMD64 and torpedo Intanium efforts.

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

#72

Post by ribit »

I fully support the idea of open instruction sets. I am not as much sold on the idea of cookie-cutter one-size-fits-all instruction sets. RISC-V is very nice for teaching CPU basics, and it is a great fit for tiny cores or specialized microcontrollers. Unfortunately, since it has been designed for simplicity it appears that it makes it harder building high-performance cores. RISC-V philosophy for high-performance OoO cores relies on instruction fusion, and thus would require the compiler to emit fusion-friendly sequences for best performance - and these sequences might differ from CPU to CPU. To me this seems to go against the very idea of common open ISA. We already see quite a lot of fragmentation and I fear it will only get worse as time goes on. More complex instructions that combine multiple processing steps would help, it seems that the core RISC-V community is opposed to that idea out of purely ideological reasons.

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

#73

Post by klelatti »

pjmlp wrote: post #70
musicale wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has a licensing deal with ARM through 2040, but they might get tired of the license fees at some point.

They are one of the ARM founders, their licensing deal is a special sauce no one else gets it.

Source?

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

#76

Post by mort96 »

klelatti wrote: post #73
pjmlp wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are one of the ARM founders, their licensing deal is a special sauce no one else gets it.

Source?

I don't get why that guy didn't just link to a source, but I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_Holdings#Founding

    The company was founded in November 1990 as Advanced RISC Machines Ltd
    and structured as a joint venture between Acorn Computers, Apple,
    and VLSI Technology.
Which links a blog post and an LA Times news article as a source: https://community.arm.com/arm-community-blogs/b/architecture..., https://web.archive.org/web/20210325060916/https://www.latim...

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

#77

Post by klelatti »

mort96 wrote: post #76
klelatti wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source?

I don't get why that guy didn't just link to a source, but I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_Holdings#Founding The company was founded in November 1990 as Advanced RISC Machines Ltd and structured as a joint venture between Acorn Computers, Apple, and VLSI Technology. Which links a blog post and an LA Times news article as a source: https://community.arm.com/arm-community-blogs/b/architecture... , https…

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 of having a big shareholding in Arm in 1991 which they sold completely in the 1990s.

Yes, Apple probably gets a great deal but because they are a huge, enormously high-profile customer who has worked closely with Arm on the development of their latest IP.

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

#78

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#79

Post by mort96 »

klelatti wrote: post #77
mort96 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get why that guy didn't just link to a source, but I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_Holdings#Founding The company was founded in November 1990 as Advanced RISC Machines Ltd and structured as a joint venture between Acorn Computers, Apple, and VLSI Technology. Which links a blog post and an LA Times news article as a source: https://community.arm.com/arm-community-blogs/b/architecture... , https…

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…

Ah sorry, I misunderstood, my bad.

I think your analysis sounds good: Apple certainly gets special deals, but those deals don't have anything to do with having been a major share-holder of ARM some 30 years ago.

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

#80

Post by klelatti »

mort96 wrote: post #79
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…

Ah sorry, I misunderstood, my bad. I think your analysis sounds good: Apple certainly gets special deals, but those deals don't have anything to do with having been a major share-holder of ARM some 30 years ago.

My apologies too - didn't mean to sound critical!

Thanks for your comment on the analysis. I see this all the time, often in even more extreme form, such as Apple gets it all for free! You can look at Arm's accounts in the 1990s and prove that Apple never got it for free.

Post reply on HN