[libre-riscv-dev] PowerISA, NLNet grants

[Samuel Falvo II]

Just a note: my homebrew RISC-V processor, the KCP53000, is not "RISC-V
Compatible," and I cannot ever use the RISC-V logo on my of my websites or
documentation.  Rather, it "implements RV64I" and "is compatible with
privilege spec 1.9."  There are other minor divergences from the official
spec where I thought they made sense (e.g., I implement the LDU
instruction, even though I don't implement RV128; to do otherwise makes the
CPU *more* complex, not less).  Inasmuch, my CPU implements a fork of the
ISA.

And, the RISC-V Foundation can do nothing to stop me, because officially,
on paper, I'm not a RISC-V product.

Of course, I'm an absolute nobody in the market; but, regardless, it's not
clear to me what steps they can do to stop me from continuing to develop my
fork.  Emacs vs XEmacs all over again.

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 12:32 PM Immanuel, Yehowshua U <
yimmanuel3 at gatech.edu> wrote:

> > Forking is frowned upon by the Foundation but can they really
> > prevent/forbid/avoid it ? They manage the ISA but they say it's "open”.
>
> Yes. I am in Academia an can testify to the fact that “open” in academia
> is not quite the same as “open” in
> free software at large.
>
>
> > Let's take the "Open Source" stand of the RVF at their word ;-)
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPXdbm9lc3A seems "inviting"
> > so let's see... The trick would be to say it's "RISC-V
> > derived/compatible"
>
> I am all for that!
>
> And in addition, a RISCV derived processor would still run Linux software
> for RISCV just fine!!
> _______________________________________________
> libre-riscv-dev mailing list
> libre-riscv-dev at lists.libre-riscv.org
> http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev
>


-- 
Samuel A. Falvo II