XMOS EULA

Non-technical related questions should go here.
User avatar
jonathan
Respected Member
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:07 pm

XMOS EULA

Postby jonathan » Thu May 27, 2010 9:28 am

Reading the XMOS EULA on the XMOS website:

http://www.xmos.com/legal/end-user-licence-agreement

It appears there are some problems.

Firstly, to what does this license apply? It is packaged with a range of stuff.
XMOS EULA wrote:"XMOS Software" comprises the XMOS owned development tools (which comprise all circuit designs, schematics, source code, object code and reference designs), other third party software and source code, other than Open Source Software (OSS), and any updates, new versions or modifications thereof which are subsequently supplied to or downloaded by You.
How do circuit diagrams and schematics, reference designs, etc work here? I thought many of these were covered by other licenses.
When used in conjunction with hardware, the XMOS Software must only be used, or be developed only for the purpose of being used, with XMOS devices.
Is there any reason for this? I know it's standard, but I believe this makes it incompatible with e.g. GPL code, and therefore seems to be a downside to me. It also seems pretty useless legally... the software can't be used without hardware(!) - how does this apply to simulation, etc. Suggest removing this.

Thanks for clarification.
Image
User avatar
AndrewBack
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:07 pm

Postby AndrewBack » Sun May 30, 2010 9:51 am

+1

Since the XMOS tools "build on the shoulders of giants" and make heavy use of pre-existing open source, and the reference/demonstration designs similarly make use of uIP etc, it would be great if the XMOS code were also furnished under a liberal licence. Thereby "putting some skin the game", so to speak. And if some people do use these in support of non-XMOS hardware, their usage may have benefit to XMOS and its customers in terms of bug reports and enhancements to the code.

As pointed out by Jonathan, the EULA also brings uncertainty over licence compatibility.

Regards,

Andrew
User avatar
jonathan
Respected Member
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:07 pm

Postby jonathan » Tue Jun 01, 2010 9:49 pm

Any ideas? Should I ping this kind of question into XMOS via a ticket (seems a bit unnecessary)?
Image
User avatar
Joerg
Member++
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:07 am

Postby Joerg » Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:17 pm

It appears this thread is related to a similar topic discussing the XMOS Open License and the XMOS EULA: http://xcore.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=452

In that thread it was clarified that the software components for download from xmos.com are licensed under the XMOS Open License - and that we have to do some cleanup work to avoid the confusion between XMOS Open License and XMOS EULA in the future.

Hope this helps.

Joerg
User avatar
jonathan
Respected Member
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:07 pm

Postby jonathan » Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:52 am

Thanks Joerg.

I was hoping for a bit more than that - as it doesn't really answer either of my questions.

I understand from your response to the earlier thread that in the specific case of source modules downloadable from the XMOS website are licensed under a BSD-variant and eventually Illinois/NCSA.

But what about "all circuit designs, schematics, .. reference designs". These are (in most cases) not software. What are these intended to be licensed under?

The second question also remains unanswered:
I wrote:
XMOS wrote:When used in conjunction with hardware, the XMOS Software must only be used, or be developed only for the purpose of being used, with XMOS devices.
Is there any reason for this? I know it's standard, but I believe this makes it incompatible with e.g. GPL code, and therefore seems to be a downside to me. It also seems pretty useless legally... the software can't be used without hardware(!) - how does this apply to simulation, etc. Suggest removing this.
Cheers.
Image
Heater
Respected Member
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:33 pm

Postby Heater » Wed Jun 02, 2010 6:20 am

I guess the idea is this:

If someone designs, builds and sells a drop in replacement for XMOS chips then they get a free ride with the XMOS development software and all the demo/example code. All users application code that used that example software could migrate to the new device immediately. Someone in XMOS did not like this idea and slapped the hardware restriction in the EULA/licence.

I think if that ever happened XMOS would know two things:

1) Their original silicon was a winner and worth cloning.

2) They have not been moving fast enough to keep ahead of the competition with new silicon.

I personally think it is a bad idea for XMOS to write it's own licence. There are many open source licences already. There is already enough confusion in the open source licence world.

If they want to shift chips then let the example/demo code go out under as few and simple restrictions as possible, BSD say, so as to encourage take up.

The hardware restriction is pointless.
User avatar
AndrewBack
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:07 pm

Postby AndrewBack » Wed Jun 02, 2010 10:09 am

Hi Joerg,
Joerg wrote:It appears this thread is related to a similar topic discussing the XMOS Open License and the XMOS EULA: http://xcore.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=452

In that thread it was clarified that the software components for download from xmos.com are licensed under the XMOS Open License - and that we have to do some cleanup work to avoid the confusion between XMOS Open License and XMOS EULA in the future.

Hope this helps.

Joerg
I'm not clear that a statement on a support forum would have any bearing on seemingly more explicit terms for license to use that are included with the materials in question. IANAL, of course, and could be wrong. Regardless of which any uncertainty will hinder adoption, and legal counsel tend to offer guidance which errs on the side of caution.

Additionally, someone new to XMOS and that has only read the EULA, may get the impression that you are happy to use third party open source but prefer restrictive terms when licensing your own code.

In short, it would be good to get this cleared up and to remove all uncertainty.

Regards,

Andrew
User avatar
Joerg
Member++
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:07 am

Postby Joerg » Wed Jun 02, 2010 8:16 pm

Hi Andrew,

you are correct that a statement on a community forum such as XCore is not or should not be interpreted, nor is a replacement for, an official legal statement.

Let me briefly clarify:
* the threads made it clear that we need to clarify and straighten out the licenses under which XMOS IP is provided
* there are two similar discussion threads in XCore, both related to licensing questions
* we wanted to communicate our intentions under which we plan to provide the XMOS provided software components

These threads have raised valid points, we've got the message and getting the licenses appropriately updated and included in all the relevant places will take some time. In the meantime, if the current situation impedes your progress with XMOS technology, please let me know.

Thanks

Joerg
User avatar
jonathan
Respected Member
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:07 pm

Postby jonathan » Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:19 am

OK, three weeks on and no changes on any of the code on the XMOS site or any of the licenses it is released under... I want to plan, so that this will not suddenly "impede my progress".

For the most part, all that needs doing is someone needs to put the right license in the right code bundle... so it's not like we're asking for a lot of work. :-)

What would be really useful is if someone from XMOS could:

1) Communicate clearly the intentions of the company with regard to:
i) Tools Releases (split if necessary into different parts licensed under different conditions)
ii) Software Component Releases
iii) Designs and Schematics for e.g. PCBs
iv) Any Other Components such as Reference Designs that might be bound by arrangements with third parties (such as Apple).

2) Communicate clearly the timescale for implementation of these intentions

Thanks.

By the way, will there be an open-source XC compiler?
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest