| --- Log opened Mon Nov 09 00:00:02 2015 | ||
| olofk | stekern, _franck_ : Any objections against smacking on a BSD header on vpi_wrapper.c in elf-loader? It's just a wrapper file | 08:34 |
|---|---|---|
| stekern | have I done anything in that? | 08:35 |
| stekern | if so, you have my blessing at least | 08:35 |
| olofk | Good. Your name turned up in git blame, but it looks like minor things | 08:36 |
| _franck__ | olofk: shouldn't be difficult | 09:08 |
| olofk | Any difference between MIT and BSD licenses? And do I have to put in the full text in the source file? | 10:10 |
| bentley` | yes, there are minor differences | 10:11 |
| bentley` | you should put the full text somewhere, might as well put it in the source file | 10:12 |
| bentley` | at the very least, the source file should say something like "this file is under the XXX license, whose full text is available in the LICENSE file blah blah blah..." | 10:13 |
| bentley` | bsd is http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause and mit is http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT | 10:14 |
| bentley` | personally i favor isc (http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/share/misc/license.template?rev=1.3&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup), but they're all pretty much the same... | 10:14 |
| bentley` | well, i should be careful about saying that. but these three licenses at least are pretty much the same. | 10:15 |
| olofk | bentley`: Ah cool. That was actually the one I was looking for | 10:15 |
| _franck__ | olofk: didn't read the backlog when I wrote "shouldn't be difficult". So yes for license header and "shouldn't be difficult" for endian aware elf-loader. | 10:39 |
| robtaylor | olofk: its sometime better to use apache, which is basically MIT written in stronger legal terms | 11:06 |
| stekern | but that's afaik not compatible with gpl, if that's a concern | 11:09 |
| robtaylor | http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html | 11:09 |
| robtaylor | GPLv2 due to clarification of patent rights | 11:10 |
| robtaylor | *incompatibility | 11:10 |
| stekern | ah, right, there was a difference between gpl v2 and v3 | 11:11 |
| stekern | in terms of compatibility with apache | 11:12 |
| robtaylor | yeah, in some ways it was apache clarifying patent positions that help form the patent positions in gpl v3 | 11:19 |
| bentley` | i'm not a fan of apache... the simpler licenses do just fine at providing an implicit patent grant | 11:30 |
| bentley` | and apache's patent grant has some added implications to users: if you ever file a patent lawsuit involving the licensed material, you instantly lose the patent grant, forever, no recourse | 11:31 |
| bentley` | even if you only file over a small infringing part, and even if it's really infringing, you lose the ability to use anything, even the parts you didn't sue over | 11:32 |
| olofk | _franck_: Thanks for the clarification. I actually pushed it already. Turned out that your and stekern's addition were only small changes | 11:33 |
| bentley` | to me, though, apache's biggest sin is its complexity: what it does in 1500 words of lawyerese, isc does effectively in 100 words ;) | 11:36 |
| bentley` | ok, i'll stop license marauding now... | 11:36 |
| robtaylor | bentley`: I know andrew katz is of the option that apache 2 holds up better legally | 13:14 |
| robtaylor | bentley`: and he's the only lawyer I know who has a speciality in open hardware licensing :) | 13:15 |
| robtaylor | though of course he's EU focused | 13:15 |
| robtaylor | ymmv ianal etc | 13:15 |
| _franck__ | olofk: fusesoc sim mor1kx-generic -h starts compilation before it displays help text | 13:42 |
| olofk | _franck_: Yeah, I know. Haven't fixed that | 14:34 |
| olofk | patch please? :) | 14:34 |
| _franck__ | sorry no patch :) I have no time for that | 14:40 |
| _franck__ | I wish I had | 14:40 |
| olofk | andrzejr_: Are your isim and xsim patches for FuseSoC in good shape. I would like to add them and release a new FuseSoC version soon | 17:22 |
| olofk | andrzejr_: I rebased your tree against my master. Planning to try out the isim support now | 17:35 |
| wbx | hi. nobody with any idea about: http://lists.opencores.org/pipermail/openrisc/2015-November/002160.html ? | 18:12 |
| andrzejr_ | olofk, they are both working and I do not plan adding anything | 19:11 |
| andrzejr_ | xsim currently runs in gui mode because I was too lazy to figure out how to start the "stand-alone" waveform viewer | 19:12 |
| andrzejr_ | I mostly use xsim, it is more stable (the simulator itself) than isim. Feels like a new/supported version of isim. | 19:14 |
| olofk | andrzejr_: Agree. It's better, even though it's annoying that they still haven't implemented VPI support | 21:19 |
| olofk | andrzejr_: Do you have anything I can use to test isim? Tried wb_intercon, but it complains on $clog2. Maybe I need to turn on vlog2005 support | 21:21 |
| olofk | Stupid Isim. Can't find a single core in orpsoc-cores that I can test it with | 21:44 |
| olofk | ok, ethmac seems to work at least | 21:46 |
| olofk | andrzejr_: I'm pushing the isim patch. Probably test xsim tomorrow. | 21:57 |
| olofk | Are you happy with the coregen provider stuff too? | 21:58 |
| andrzejr_ | olofk, you can try https://github.com/andrzej-r/orpsoc-cores/blob/nexys4ddr/systems/nexys4ddr/nexys4ddr_ddr2_wb/nexys4ddr_ddr2_wb.core | 23:05 |
| andrzejr_ | although it is a bit out of date and afair isim was crashing on it during simulation | 23:06 |
| andrzejr_ | I am fine with coregen provider. No further changes planned. | 23:07 |
| andrzejr_ | I was going to make a provider for wb_interconn and/or a generic provider for "script" but haven't got to it yet. | 23:08 |
| andrzejr_ | The only problem I have with using providers for code generation is naming. "fetch" or "downloaded" do not fit this model well and that leaks to UI and error messages. | 23:13 |
| --- Log closed Tue Nov 10 00:00:03 2015 | ||
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.2 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!