4 ms·

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

by 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.
vegetablepotpie 3y ago
To be clear the letter doesn’t say that the US should support proprietary ISAs, in fact it doesn’t even say US persons cannot work with someone in China on RISC-V (or other open architectures). They are suggesting that for a US person to work with a person or institution in China, they must first seek a license from the Dept. of Commerce. This would be like if in 2005 the US said that if you wanted to accept patches from China, for Linux, you needed their approval to do so. This doesn’t make it good policy though. Our allies will be stuck in the crossfire and basically have to choose between Chinese RISC-V or US RISC-V. US export controls are very far reaching and apply to re-transfers, which requires a sustained administrative infrastructure to avoid violating. As a result European satellites and space hardware for example completely avoid using US parts to derisk compliance. What export licenses will ultimately do is isolate the US.

by rwmj 3y ago

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.

vegetablepotpie 3y ago

To be clear the letter doesn’t say that the US should support proprietary ISAs, in fact it doesn’t even say US persons cannot work with someone in China on RISC-V (or other open architectures). They are suggesting that for a US person to work with a person or institution in China, they must first seek a license from the Dept. of Commerce. This would be like if in 2005 the US said that if you wanted to accept patches from China, for Linux, you needed their approval to do so. This doesn’t make it good policy though. Our allies will be stuck in the crossfire and basically have to choose between Chinese RISC-V or US RISC-V. US export controls are very far reaching and apply to re-transfers, which requires a sustained administrative infrastructure to avoid violating. As a result European satellites and space hardware for example completely avoid using US parts to derisk compliance. What export licenses will ultimately do is isolate the US.