5 ms·
Another interesting take: Machine architectures expose an API, and it may become impossible for anyone but a chip manufacturer to distribute a compiler.
by R0b0t1 6y ago
Another interesting take: Machine architectures expose an API, and it may become impossible for anyone but a chip manufacturer to distribute a compiler.
- ColanR 6y agoThat sounds like a win for RISC.
- rocqua 6y agoMachine architectures are very much copyrightable right? That's why Intel license x86 to AMD. Thing is, for chip manufactures it makes no sense not to allow others to call this x86 API. Things could get dicier for other who try and virtualize a machine instruction set.
- garaetjjte 6y agoIsn't x86 licensing situation caused only by patents?
- bismuthsalt 6y agoARM has built a business around selling licenses for an instruction set, with multiple third parties implementing said instruction set in silicon.
- phkahler 6y agoARM uses patents to prevent other implementations, not copyright law.
- FartyMcFarter 6y agoI don't see the similarity. A compiler outputs machine code, it doesn't implement machine code. Google's Java implementation implements Java APIs.
- wtallis 6y agoIt might not matter to the law which side of an interface you're on, if your work is still clearly derivative (in the legal sense) of that interface design.