"Xilinx invests a significant amount in research and development, and vigorously protects and enforces its intellectual property rights resulting from its research and development efforts. It is also correct that when Xilinx licenses its software and tools, Xilinx prohibits its customers from reverse engineering and decompiling its software products. Also, the bitstream created by using Xilinx software is owned by Xilinx can only be used on Xilinx programmable products, for example, FPGAs.
Xilinx licensing terms and conditions are similar to other companies that provide similar products and services. Therefore, Xilinx sees no basis for amending or modifying the terms and conditions of its software licenses and the rights to use the bitstream created with the use of Xilinx software."
For Xilinx sponsored University projects, there may be separate agreements (I know because I am sponsoring a project, and I had to review the new agreement).
So, for anyone using our software, read the agreement, and be sure you are in compliance. If you desire to do anything outside of the agreement, please contact our legal department, or the Xilinx University Program.
Thanks for being direct and bringing this info directly to this forum.
The broad assumption is that XDL and the interfaces/libraries that it exposes are a public interface. Combined with the fact that is it openly disclosed outside NDA on a very large number of projects, what is the specific Xilinx statement about XDL and related info being a public use interface to ISE outside of NDA restrictions?
"XDL and related info being a public use interface to ISE outside of NDA restrictions" is clearly prohibited.
But, if XDL is used inside of the agreement, then that is OK.
For example, if you created a XDL file with our tools, and then processed it with your tool, and then wanted to use in in silicon other than Xilinx, that is prohibited.
If you created your own XDL file, without use of our tools, sent it through your own tools, to do something with it (for reasons unknown) then I suppose (but we can research further) we don't care what you do with it.
But if you then used our tools again (to do anything) to the XDL (you created), then again, its use is restricted to Xilinx silicon.
So, if our software is part of the chain, then the agreement applies.
Thanks Austin for making this clear. You mentioned that Xilinx provides exemptions to university projects. There is significant documentation to be gleaned from various published works which are easily located with google. Most of these appear to be university sources.
Can we assume that source code, VDL files, papers, and instructional materials which describe VDL and related interfaces are approved disclosures by Xilinx that open source can freely use to develop open source tools in support of Xilinx customers?
It seems to me that part of the problem is that Xilinx is used to negotiating special provisions with customers one by one, and may even be quite responsive and liberal in doing so with fairly small customers.
That's fine for closed projects, but open source efforts under "free software" licensing may only make use of information or components which may be freely shared with all potential users, with the only restrictions on disclosure, permissable uses or modifications being that you cannot impose new restrictions on disclosure, permissable use or modification.
As a result, the only usefull answers to the kinds of questions that have been asked are published, public ones.
Though some of the questioning and floating of trial answers could take place behind the scenes.
I can not personally broker a deal for an open source project, because I can not control the use and modification of the project in the open public. I would not accept the personal liability should Xilinx think I could even control what happens to the information after we publish it.
So public discussion, that all can use is the only productive forum for open source uses.
I think you could get the ball rolling with some email, but I agree that all of the 'decisions' woul d have to be very public, and even enough late-stage discussion to illuminate them, for the result to be of any use for a free and open project.
It seems like you are hoping Xilinx legal will meet you here. That might be a good result, but you may have to first talk to them on their turf to issue the invitation.
It seems that there are really two different issues at stake here (in the context of people wanting to release open source XDL-interfacing tools).
- disclosing the XDL interface. The XDL file format is not published anywhere (I don't think, not even in Xilinx doco). So almost by definition, to use it you have to reverse engineer it. Thus, to release an open source tool that speaks XDL, you are disclosing Xilinx proprietary information that was obtained contrary to the terms of the EULA. That's naughty, and probably justifies a nastygram from the lawyers.
- targetting non-Xilinx parts. Disregarding (1) above, if I release a tool that speaks XDL, am I responsible for what people do with it? I would argue "no", but I'm sure you could find a lawyer who would argue "yes".
That's a legalistic interpretation. But, back in the real world, what Xilinx wants to do is sell FPGAs. The best way to get Xilinx on side is to help them do that. They'll either look the other way, help you along, or if you're really good at it - buy you out.
So, how do you create an XDL tool that does a "reach through" on Xilinx's condition that you only use Xilinx tools to target Xilinx parts?
Well, maybe hybrid licensing is one approach. As long as you write the software from scratch, with no existing GPL (e.g.) code, then you can license the tool under any conditions you like[1]. For example, you could say
"This software is released under the terms of the Gnu General Pulbic License version 2.0 (or BSD or whatever), PLUS the provision that the tool be used only to target Xilinx FPGAs".
You'll probably want a lawyer to write this one, and Xilinx's lawyers would also want a look in. Richard Stallman would probably have a minor fit over the concept of bundling an commercial exclusivity clause with the GPL, but oh well.
What you've now created is a hybrid license, incompatible with the pure GPL (ok, so you can't host it on sourceforge, no big deal). If someone uses the tool to target an Altera part, then they are breaking the conditions of their license and it is therefore immediately revoked.
You would add a viral clause which makes sure that further refinements of the tool are also covered by the same dual condition (GPL + Xilinx only).
So, if the goal here is to develop open source XDL tools, I think there are probably creative solutions, that will involve some compromises. If the goal is just to whinge about Xilinx's EULAs, then mission accomplished, and we can all go back to work.
Regards,
John
[1] If it's your code, you can insert any condition you like, no matter how silly. How about "It is a condition of using this software that you wear a propellor-head cap and stick your tongue out while doing so". Very silly, but if you don't like the conditions, don't use the software!
Actually what I was hoping for was an open source advocate inside the company to act as the interface point between public discussions and Xilinx Legal. If the culture is clearly anti-open source, then I surely would not expect someone to put their job on the line as an advocate.
Actually, I think I've already been accurately given the answers, and took a lot of heat for exposing part of the private discussions I have had about this touchy subject.
Going from "using XDL" for some unspecified reason, to "open source" is a big step. Too big.
There is nothing "open source" about any of Xilinx's software.
Right now, the discussion has been about an ASCII representation of connections that Xilinx developed as a convenience (replaced an earlier format).
XDL's use is only restricted by the agreements on the software that created it, and uses it (that we supply). It also specifically allows uses (for which it is intended) like someone writes a parser to generate a nice report from the XDL file (noted in the comments on XDL in our documentation).
If you chose XDL to use as your intermediate language for your CS111 FPGA, I think it would be a curious choice, but one we would not have much claim to, as if you had your own tools to create it, and use it, test it; and you never used our tools, IP, or patents, why would we care?
For you perhaps, but open source code under a freedom-preserving license is perhaps the most likely variety of tool that volunteers might develop. The other alternative, closed software developed by those who hope to sell seats, and will license what they need from you, seems more in your comfort zone to date.
That's not what we're talking about, though I seem to recall some cygwin-ish files floating around in the install - but let's call that off topic.
Which if half of your comments are to believed is too encumbered to be of any use outside a private or closed source tool - or if the other half are to be believed, is available and harmless.
Yes, but someone else can take that parser and use it as a starting point for something like reverse engineering. Unless the license terms _of the parser_ prevent that. But if they do, then parser (despite not being Xilinx software) is not a free and open tool.
If it really talks the same XDL you do, then someone can use it as a bridge between a new language and your silicon (which you would like) or between your tools and someone else's silicon. The later would allegedly be a violation of your license terms, but not of the license terms of the proposed XDL tool - unless the XDL tool is not a free and open piece of software.
If the proposed XDL tool is not a free and open piece of software, then some of the participants in this discussion aren't interested in writing it. We could have a whole other discussion about why, but the obvious reason is that it's too big a project to be worthwhile without input from many sources and the justification of many users.
This is the companies right, no matter how much we object. There has to be a business decision that open source is in the companies best interests ... which is where talking about this and lobbying might be of use.
Until a document shows up on the public web site, with equiv data to the XNF specifications ... file format and object definitions, it's a closed proprietary standard, that requires violating the ISE EULA NDA to make public any use of it.
*IF* there were a public document like the XNF spec, this statement would be true. Today it is false, as no one has been able to find such a public document yet.
With a public XDL format and library objects document, this is exactly what we hope for.
But what if someone figures out XDL by reverse engineering your tool, rather than Xilinx's software? How do you prohibit someone from reverse engineering (ie, reading and taking notes) open code?
I think everyone here understands that. While I consider it regrettable, I choose not to agitate for a change in that situation.
That's a nice statement. Please back it up by posting the document titled "Xilinx Design Language" on the 'net, accessible to people who have not clicked on the ISE EULA. The copy I see in an old ISE-6.2 install is Version 1.6, updated 07/07/2000.
Nobody (I hope) wants to pirate that copyrighted work. But our rights to use the information contained in that document would be much clearer -- and legally match both the assertions made here in c.a.f and the implications in the XDL document itself -- if that document got untangled from the ISE EULA.
That's not for me to decide. The point of being squeaky-clean legal is that an XDL-using project would not get shut down even _if_ Xilinx decided to care.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.