intellectual property and UT's approach
Mr. Rideau--check your assumptions. Jeff
and Chuck sure do value
their property as far as I can tell
from my email conversations with Jeff.
I do not consider ownership evil, whether
it is ownership of complete consumer appliances,
software or hardware subcomponents,
software tools marketed to engineers,
or complete software/hardware tools marketed to engineers. How does Mr.
Rideau suggest
everyone should benefit
from someone elses work? By a prearranged payment
from only one person or company for
releasing work into the public domain? Sounds like
a tough deal to negotiate for near what it is worth...
especially since property like that grows in value with time. I like the
idea of releasing some, not all building block pieces of work to the
public after being paid for them
by early adopters. I like parts of the Gnu Public License, but I have not
read it all yet...
From conversing with Jeff, I doubt he is interested
in "safe" work. He and Chuck seem interested in he
highest possible personal productivity, and cannot
see spending time on old stuff. That the MuP21 does
not work as is much better than a gate array version
means nothing because the speed is DRAM limited. Jeff's going for the ultra
performance possible when
a FRAM is integrated on chip! He doesn't want no stinking FPGA's! He seems
to want to trade a specific
product design, (all the way to debugged),
for capability to take the low fat
concept further.
Promoting old stuff may be where
list members can contribute, and old stuff can easily be public domain when
it has not sold big, or sales
are down since it was new.
JG Austin TX
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francois-Rene Rideau [mailto:fare@tunes.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 1999 6:18 PM
snip>
value of a company
is not in its intellectual property (EVIL),
.
.
system integrators who *use*
embedded processors: *they* are the ones who would benefit from a
business model without intellectual property. It would provide them
with security against makers of proprietary chips.
.
.
although I do appreciate
Chuck Moore's work on optimizing processes by challenging specs
and using parts beyond "safe", well-charted, linear digital behavior areas,
why not just publishing "slow" parts that share the same logical behavior,
but staying within specs, and taking advantage of standard
(and perhaps faster) processes?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: M. Simon [mailto:msimon@tefbbs.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 1999 11:52 AM
> Subject: Grateful Dead Marketing
IBM vs Linux.
I think the only way FORTH will succeed is to give it all away.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: M. Simon [mailto:msimon@tefbbs.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 1999 7:36 AM
Businessmen love having
a fallback position. Ask Jeff.
Even though DYOP is ten year old technology, if it can be made popular
we may get the business community to look at the newer stuff.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Lowry [mailto:lowry@htc.honeywell.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 1999 1:08 PM
He [Ting]has written, in Verilog and VHDL, a 16 bit
"clone". At present, it's just the CPU, no video.
I have synthesized the VHDL version, and run it in a
Xilinx gate array at about 25 MHz. This is not too
terribly far from the real-world performance of the x21
chips running out of DRAM. Plus, the chip seems to
perform much more reliably than MuP21.
