
Lattice FPGA adds 'no reversing' clause for SDK built on reversed bitstreams - paulgerhardt
https://twitter.com/fpga_dave/status/1268497428501725184/photo/1
======
DivisionSol
Miserable. Even if it wasn't officially supported, I have fun messing with the
iCE40 open source toolchain on my dev boards. In fact, the whole reason I know
of Lattice is because of the open-source toolchain that was scraped together,
by the community.

Stop flogging us for wanting to work on your chips and tools.

------
kyboren
Absolutely pathetic and shortsighted. iCE40 is popular exclusively because of
the reverse engineering work that this prohibits.

I was actually thinking that Lattice might be an interesting place to work,
considering the growing open source ecosystem centered around their devices.
No longer.

~~~
zokier
> iCE40 is popular exclusively because of the reverse engineering work that
> this prohibits.

ice40 is popular _in the hobbyist market_ exclusively because of the reverse
engineering work. I doubt it has made much of a blip in commercial use.

~~~
avmich
I always thought that commercial proposals grow and benefit from hobbyist
market in a significant way. At least a bunch of commercial products which
grew out of Kickstarter proposals. Maybe it's not a large case comparing with
the whole industry of Lattice users?

------
5-
Update:

 _Thanks for pointing out a new bitstream usage restriction in the Lattice
Propel license. It is not our intent to hinder open source tools.
See[https://www.linkedin.com/posts/lattice-
semiconductor_lattice...](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/lattice-
semiconductor_lattice-propel-license-activity-6674864964295114752-fe-5) re an
updated license. We are excited with the open source community’s FPGA
achievements and their potential._

[https://twitter.com/latticesemi/status/1269115302140231682](https://twitter.com/latticesemi/status/1269115302140231682)

This is the linkedin post:

 _To the open source community, thank-you for pointing out a new bitstream
usage restriction in the Lattice Propel license. We are excited about the
community’s engagement with Lattice devices and our intent is to not hinder
the creation of innovative open source FPGA tools.

You can log into the Lattice website and check out the updated license text at
[https://www.latticesemi.com/Accounts/SignIn.aspx?media={26E9...](https://www.latticesemi.com/Accounts/SignIn.aspx?media={26E903C5-25C7-41AC-873C-27A8D6CED778}&document_id=52956&ReturnUrl=%2Ffileexplorer).
Please note that the license text is also replicated during install, and the
new text will be available in tools available for download early next week.
Thanks again for the feedback._

~~~
paulgerhardt
Old license: No reversing “Modules” - in particular “bit streams”.

New license: No reversing “Modules”.

They didn’t fix anything. They removed the clause which explicitly defines
“bit streams” as “Modules” but kept the clause which prohibits reversing
“Modules”. I’ll assume this is a clerical error in an effort to get legal to
move on a fix in a day but as it stands the updated license still prohibits
reversing bitstreams.

------
yummypaint
I had been excited about the iCE40 and was planning to get a dev kit, entirely
because of the toolchain. Now that they are intentionally crippling the
ecosystem the community was so gracious to create for them, there is no reason
to even look into their products. I already have other devices that are locked
down to all hell, and im not going to invest in using a new vendor unless they
can be trusted to be better at a fundamental level.

------
jhallenworld
Aside from the license, it's annoying that "Propel" is Windows only and only
supports MachXO3D (though they say they will add more chips soon).

Also, I'm not a huge fan that they are copying Xilinx's "IP Integrator"
graphical system builder. It would be far better if the tool was somehow HDL-
centric instead of schematic-centric (not that I've tried it- just looking at
the documentation).

------
5-
The title might be a bit misleading -- I don't think Propel makes use of
reverse engineered bitstreams.

Its licence does, however, prohibit using the product for reverse engineering.

Isn't this move more against the likes of GOWIN (who reportedly copied much of
Lattice's design) than the open-source/hobbyist crowd?

~~~
ZirconiumX
GOWIN's design is very similar to the ECP5 in architecture, but the bitstream
formats are notably different.

------
loa_in_
Please don't parse and understand this comment.

------
m3kw9
This is only for their propel sdk

------
LargoLasskhyfv
_BOOOOO000000!_

------
derision
Companies have a right to attempt to protect their IP

~~~
avmich
They however shouldn't break the law in the process. I am not a lawyer, but
using gcc would require them to license products in GPL-compatible ways.

~~~
rat9988
Using gcc doesn't make your work gpl.

~~~
ZirconiumX
Distributing GCC does.

~~~
avmich
In some sense, yes, using GCC puts limits on what you can legally do. The
intent of those limits is well explained by Stallman. In case of API I highly
suspect the intent is there. Now, how that intent is interpreted by reading
GPL is another matter - though it would be sad to find a company abusing the
legal system.

