RE: [vhdl-200x] Code sharing

All,

  Open Source code is fraught with IPR issues.

  For the SystemVerilog example given by Jim with OVM open source
project. It behooves me to set the record straight. As it may appear
to be one thing, when it is totally different. The legal scheme behind
it has no relation to IEEE standardization. OVM was an open source
project between Mentor Graphics and Cadence Design Systems. The "open
source" repository was actually at a private location that both
companies had equal access too, but not the public. Mentor and Cadence
agreed from the beginning to release code to each other under the Apache
2.0 license. This license gives rather broad rights to those who
download and use it and was deemed by our collective judgment to be best
for producers and consumers alike. Indeed, the code sharing between
Mentor and Cadence being under Apache 2.0 ensured neither side would
want to stand in the way of rapid progress.

  It worked extraordinarily well. But it has given way to UVM.

  While what is learned with OVM and UVM may well impact the IEEE P1800
(SystemVerilog) standard, the two are separate from each other.

  As for UVM, open source collaboration is on SourceForge.
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/uvm/?source=directory) This is an
Accellera Systems Initiative project and Accellera has permitted its
technical subcommittees to engage in open source development without
limited oversight if they adopt the Apache 2.0 license. There may be
other good licenses as well. And there are bad ones. In this regard,
those who upload code do so with this license.

  Open Source and its IPR issues have been a topic of conversation in
the new Accellera. In particular, the SystemC group has a process by
which definitive rights to code are well known at the end of a standard.
Companies of participating employees must certify the code (and any and
all actions in the committee) are licensed under the OSCI Open Source
license. I have copied Stan Krolikoski on this email as he heads the
Accellera team that is bringing use of this scheme into the new
Accellera. He is also DASC chair.

  One can well imagine that if you are working in the IEEE group in
which the IEEE asserts that one's contribution is considered a
"work-for-hire" but the participant may be employed by a company with an
employment agreement that states the company is the owner there can be
confusion. Indeed, there can be and this is all handled by Accellera.
And, if anyone or any company has doubts, the agreements by companies
to certify they have given (legally, they license) the work of their
employee or themselves (open source and other elements) to the
standard, which removes all doubt.

  In the case of the IEEE, I understand they assert all work in a
working group is their property, just like Accellera and other standard
making bodies. What Accellera does is take it one step further for
SystemC to ensure owners of IP have licensed it to Accellera. And here
is an important point. For Accellera Open Source projects (like SystemC
and UVM) the owners of the software remain the owners. They simply
license it to you.

  Stan is also chair of the DASC and may be well positioned to help 1076
and the IEEE grow to have a vibrant open source companion to many of
their standards.

  In regards to eda.org and who may own what is there. Technically the
domain is owned by Accellera. Many, but not all of the IEEE groups are
shifting to IEEE supported sites. The SystemVerilog group will probably
relocate its reflectors to the IEEE in the not too distant future. But
if anyone "owns" what goes on to eda.org, it is probably Accellera. And
the agreement between the IEEE WGs and Accellera should be in writing.

  I believe how we all "want" to operate is that the IEEE's stuff on
eda.org is its stuff. But it is safer to have this in writing. Also,
having code posted to eda.org could be a legal exposure to Accellera as
well, that, in time, they may wish to address.

  I'm also a bit hesitant to have an Individual-based standards project
chair represent the position of industry. Industry has a strong,
vibrant and growing voice in the SA. Producers, consumers, academic
institutes, non-profits and more have gathered to work on numerous
projects in the IEEE SA that address issues of design verification. In
fact, we have stepped up our financial commitment to the IEEE SA with a
membership class where most are paying $10k/year plus additional project
fees to ensure industry has in place the needed standards and support.
The corporate program has driven global expansion of projects, supported
an expansion of offices globally and by working with the SA have opened
and staffed the Bangalore Standards Interest Group (SIG) that has
resulted in the first India-led SA standard. We now have numerous
standards being chaired out of Asia. When there is a standards
imperative, corporate members can respond with necessary projects.

  As such, I don't believe the state of the economy has much to do with
what industry wants. But I am open to hear feedback and learn what has
been garnered by others, of course Jim too, as the respected 1076 chiar,
regarding the feedback they have gotten or are getting.

Cheers,

Dennis

From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On Behalf
Of Daniel Kho
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 7:51 PM
To: vhdl-200x@eda.org
Subject: Re: [vhdl-200x] Code sharing

Hi all,
My view is that we could discuss about what to do with the open source
libraries in an IEEE reflector, for example, perhaps discuss on which of
the library features we would like to standardize, or say start up a
discussion about a certain method that the library uses which actually
works around a language limitation. For the second scenario, it would be
good that the open source package authors / contributors post up their
suggestions on the IEEE reflector explaining about the desired language
feature(s) and how the existing packages work around those limitations.

Then, leave the rest of the discussion on the IEEE reflector to decide
on further improvements to the standard that solves those limitations,
or even discuss whether we would want to standardize parts (or the
whole) open source packages.

I know it gets a bit tricky when an individual is part of the IEEE VHDL
WG as well as an open source community. Perhaps when posting as an open
source contributor to an IEEE reflector, discuss only things that have
already been developed in the open source project. IEEE can't lay claims
on things that have already been developed by another project.
You could also discuss language limitations and how those open source
packages work around them. For this, if the IEEE WG decide on
implementing a new language enhancement, then of course that enhancement
would be part of the IEEE standard and copyrighted by IEEE. I think this
is fine.
Future versions of the open source packages could still use this new
language feature(s).

Comments welcome.

regards, daniel

On 2 June 2012 01:58, Ken Campbell <sckoarn@storm.ca> wrote:

Disconnect all this effort from the working group.

Start up a new reflector.

Disconnect effort this from IEEE, take it to a public group.

I would be willing to contribute, but not if there is even a slim chance
the work could get claimed by an agency like IEEE.

Ken

> Hi Jim,
> I do not think this has anything to do with eda.org since that is an
> independent organization that has no formal association with the
IEEEE.
> The issue is what constitutes a work product of the working group and
what
> is done by an independent group.
>
> I wish you luck on this. The last time I tried to fight this battle
there
> was not much room to negotiate with the IEEE.
>
> Regards
> David
>
> David W. Smith
> Synopsys Scientist
>
> Synopsys, Inc.
> Synopsys Technology Park
> 2025 NW Cornelius Pass Road
> Hillsboro, OR 97124
>
> Voice: 503.547.6467
> Main: 503.547.6000
> Cell: 503.560.5389
> FAX: 503.547.6906
> Email: david.smith@synopsys.com
> http://www.synopsys.com
>
> Saber Accelerates Robust Design
> Predictable. Repeatable. Reliable. Proven.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On
Behalf
> Of Jim Lewis
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:48 PM
> To: vhdl-200x@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [vhdl-200x] Code sharing
>
> Hi Joan,
> With the current economy, EDA vendors want cost effective ways of
> implementing verification features.
> One trade-off we are going to need to make is between implementing
> features as syntax and implementing features in open source sharable
> libraries.
>
> I for see the development of these libraries as open source rather
than
> IEEE standards as they will need to be kept on a much shorter update
and
> review cycle than IEEE balloting facilitates.
>
> At a minimum, we will need a large degree of cooperation and
interaction
> between the standards group and the people developing open source
> libraries. If these open source libraries are going to be a candidate
> replacement for language syntax features, the VHDL committee may wish
to
> review these libraries and comment on them on this reflector and in
IEEE
> VHDL meetings.
>
> Since the set of people working on the two projects overlaps, it would
be
> simpler from an administration perspective that we use a shared email
> reflector for both activities.
>
> So if we discuss what we are doing as an open source community on the
> VHDL-200X reflector (hosted on eda.org) and/or the VHDL-200X reflector
is
> shared between an IEEE project and an open source VHDL library
project, is
> IEEE going to make any claims to the work produced?
> If so, how do we coordinate activity between an IEEE working group and
an
> open source VHDL library group?
>
> If we need a separate reflector for the open source work, do we need a
> separate reflector? I note that eda.org hosts both Accellera groups,
some
> of which produce open source libraries, as well as IEEE groups.
>
> Thanks,
> Jim
>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> As you know, the IEEE owns the copyright to anything developed in the
>> WG.
> > The old packages have the IEEE copyright statement in them.
Likewise,
> > IEEE would own the copyright to new packages if they are
>> developed by the WG.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Joan
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jim Lewis
> Director of Training mailto:Jim@SynthWorks.com
> SynthWorks Design Inc. http://www.SynthWorks.com
> 1-503-590-4787
>
> Expert VHDL Training for Hardware Design and Verification
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
>

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is
believed to be clean. 
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.