3 ms·

> Firstly the US government doesn't license chip designs I'm not sure if 'license' is the right word, maybe not, however the US government does pretty tightly

by qwytw 3y ago

> Firstly the US government doesn't license chip designs I'm not sure if 'license' is the right word, maybe not, however the US government does pretty tightly control what technologies you're allowed to license/sell to foreign entities. > Secondly there are plenty of open architectures already (Loongson being just one) If Western companies don't invest into RISC-V that would slow down any meaningful progress in the ecosystem. Of course it might also mean that they will be left behind by Chinese companies. > they could copy x86 without licensing if they wanted to. They could, good luck selling it to anyone outside China. Also Chinese companies which did that would probably sanctioned to such an extent that they couldn't sell any of their products in half of the world (not just chips). > Although it can be both stupid and dangerous when you've got US representatives writing such rubbish Again. How is it stupid? I mean it's a blatant attempt at protectionism and (I'm not sure what the right word for that is, but something related to imperialism?). I don't think it's irrational, though. Unless you don't believe that RISC-V becoming more widespread posses a threat to the hegemony US/Western companies have in the highend chip market?

rwmj 3y ago
It's stupid because RISC-V isn't a specific new technology, something like an EUV machine. You can control where those are shipped. It's also not really a new idea, like patenting a new method for speculative execution or somesuch. You could work with US industry to keep those a trade secret. RISC-V is an attempt to make a pretty boring but cross-industry standard architecture that doesn't need licensing. The fact that it doesn't need licenses is the giveaway that RISC-V isn't groundbreaking exciting new work, but more like Linux, a dull, but free, reimplementation of an existing idea. Ask yourself if the US can control Linux distribution, or if it would have been a good idea back in 1991 for the US government to support proprietary Unix and prevent US developers from working on Linux or BSD. How would that have gone do you think? Would we be in a better place now if US persons could not work on Linux and if the US was funding SunOS development? (And I say this as a big fan of RISC-V and the first person to work on the Fedora port to RISC-V).
- qwytw 3y ago
  > RISC-V is an attempt to make a pretty boring but cross-industry standard architecture that doesn't need licensing Exactly. Why would the US government want that when they have significant influence over the companies(y) that you currently have to license this tech from? > Unix and prevent US developers from working on Linux or BSD. How would that have gone do you think? Just to clarify I'm not saying I support this, it just seems to me that what are they doing makes sense from a certain perspective. Having said that I don't believe opensource HW can really work that well (compared to software at least). Linux et al. succeeded the most (or maybe only) in areas where software is a cost center and not the actual end product. If they adopt OSS software most companies don't have much to loss and usually have something to gain by contributing to it. I just don't see that working in the mid/high-end chip market (we seem to agree somewhat on that, though). If you're in the business of designing (not manufacturing) chips what possible incentives can you have to open your designs? Even licensing doesn't seem like a good option (look at the peanuts ARM is making). You'd only turn your product into a commodity and nobody wants that because it means lower margins. Instead you'd try to corner the market and then add proprietary extensions & other stuff to lock your users in (and having a third party like ARM which at least levels the field somewhat seems like a preferable options). Of course you might end up with entire business model disappearing, just like proprietary UNIX etc., due to similar reasons and being replaced by fab/cloud/consumer tect/etc. companies funding OS designs instead.
  - rwmj 3y ago
    I totally understand what the representatives are trying to do, but it's not going to work because they fundamentally don't understand the way that things work. That's a recipe for stupid and dangerous rules that will backfire on the US. > I don't believe opensource HW can really work that well It'll work because hardware vendors are always trying to reduce costs, and licensing costs are part of that. A big part for embedded designs, less so for high end stuff, and guess where RISC-V is making inroads right now. > Instead you'd try to corner the market and then add proprietary extensions & other stuff to lock your users in Definitely a danger that this could happen. At Red Hat we've been pretty clear that we wouldn't support vendors that do this.
- 3y ago
phendrenad2 3y ago
You seem to be arguing that the law is secretly a tactic to kill RISC-V, but I think you're giving the lawmakers too much credit.
- monocasa 3y ago
  Lawmakers can be a weapon itself rather than the holder of a weapon.
tenebrisalietum 3y ago
Banning RISC-V is like banning a programming language - more specifically something like banning a dialect of C or Python. It's something that IP is composed of, not IP itself.

by qwytw 3y ago

rwmj 3y ago

It's stupid because RISC-V isn't a specific new technology, something like an EUV machine. You can control where those are shipped. It's also not really a new idea, like patenting a new method for speculative execution or somesuch. You could work with US industry to keep those a trade secret. RISC-V is an attempt to make a pretty boring but cross-industry standard architecture that doesn't need licensing. The fact that it doesn't need licenses is the giveaway that RISC-V isn't groundbreaking exciting new work, but more like Linux, a dull, but free, reimplementation of an existing idea. Ask yourself if the US can control Linux distribution, or if it would have been a good idea back in 1991 for the US government to support proprietary Unix and prevent US developers from working on Linux or BSD. How would that have gone do you think? Would we be in a better place now if US persons could not work on Linux and if the US was funding SunOS development? (And I say this as a big fan of RISC-V and the first person to work on the Fedora port to RISC-V).

qwytw 3y ago
> RISC-V is an attempt to make a pretty boring but cross-industry standard architecture that doesn't need licensing Exactly. Why would the US government want that when they have significant influence over the companies(y) that you currently have to license this tech from? > Unix and prevent US developers from working on Linux or BSD. How would that have gone do you think? Just to clarify I'm not saying I support this, it just seems to me that what are they doing makes sense from a certain perspective. Having said that I don't believe opensource HW can really work that well (compared to software at least). Linux et al. succeeded the most (or maybe only) in areas where software is a cost center and not the actual end product. If they adopt OSS software most companies don't have much to loss and usually have something to gain by contributing to it. I just don't see that working in the mid/high-end chip market (we seem to agree somewhat on that, though). If you're in the business of designing (not manufacturing) chips what possible incentives can you have to open your designs? Even licensing doesn't seem like a good option (look at the peanuts ARM is making). You'd only turn your product into a commodity and nobody wants that because it means lower margins. Instead you'd try to corner the market and then add proprietary extensions & other stuff to lock your users in (and having a third party like ARM which at least levels the field somewhat seems like a preferable options). Of course you might end up with entire business model disappearing, just like proprietary UNIX etc., due to similar reasons and being replaced by fab/cloud/consumer tect/etc. companies funding OS designs instead.
- rwmj 3y ago
  I totally understand what the representatives are trying to do, but it's not going to work because they fundamentally don't understand the way that things work. That's a recipe for stupid and dangerous rules that will backfire on the US. > I don't believe opensource HW can really work that well It'll work because hardware vendors are always trying to reduce costs, and licensing costs are part of that. A big part for embedded designs, less so for high end stuff, and guess where RISC-V is making inroads right now. > Instead you'd try to corner the market and then add proprietary extensions & other stuff to lock your users in Definitely a danger that this could happen. At Red Hat we've been pretty clear that we wouldn't support vendors that do this.
3y ago

phendrenad2 3y ago

You seem to be arguing that the law is secretly a tactic to kill RISC-V, but I think you're giving the lawmakers too much credit.

monocasa 3y ago
Lawmakers can be a weapon itself rather than the holder of a weapon.

tenebrisalietum 3y ago

Banning RISC-V is like banning a programming language - more specifically something like banning a dialect of C or Python. It's something that IP is composed of, not IP itself.