Genode FPGA graphics project launched

Genode FX is a composition of hardware and software that enables the
creation of fully fledged graphical user interfaces as system-on-chip
solutions using commodity FPGAs, e.g., Xilinx' low-cost Spartan3 series.
The integrated solution complements the Microblaze soft core with custom
hardware for interconnecting display and input devices. On the software
side, the heart of the project is a complete GUI software stack
especially tailored to resource-constrained embedded systems. In
addition to leveraging the Microblaze architecture, support for the PPC
core as featured in high-end Virtex5 FPGAs is on the way. This prospect
makes Genode FX a solution that scales with the demands of current and
future applications. The release features a complete demonstration
project ready to use with widely popular Spartan3A Starter Kit boards.

To learn more about Genode FX visit:
http://www.genode-labs.com/products/fpga-graphics

To download Genode FX sourcecode and demo project visit:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/genode-fx/

Matthias

On 27 Aug, 13:10, Matthias Alles kl.de> wrote:
> Genode FX is a composition of hardware and software that enables the
> creation of fully fledged graphical user interfaces as system-on-chip
> solutions using commodity FPGAs, e.g., Xilinx' low-cost Spartan3 series.
> The integrated solution complements the Microblaze soft core with custom
> hardware for interconnecting display and input devices. On the software
> side, the heart of the project is a complete GUI software stack
> especially tailored to resource-constrained embedded systems. In
> addition to leveraging the Microblaze architecture, support for the PPC
> core as featured in high-end Virtex5 FPGAs is on the way. This prospect
> makes Genode FX a solution that scales with the demands of current and
> future applications. The release features a complete demonstration
> project ready to use with widely popular Spartan3A Starter Kit boards.
>
> To learn more about Genode FX visit:http://www.genode-labs.com/products/fpga-graphics
>
> To download Genode FX sourcecode and demo project visit:https://sourceforge.net/projects/genode-fx/
>
> Matthias

Looks interesting. Would the LGPL license be more appropriate though?
For example, can you legally distribute a project based on the GPLed
Genode that also uses MicroBlaze/NIOS, as doing so would presumably
require you to provide the MicroBlaze source as well, which will
obviously be a problem.

Jon

Hi Jon,

> Looks interesting. Would the LGPL license be more appropriate though?
> For example, can you legally distribute a project based on the GPLed
> Genode that also uses MicroBlaze/NIOS, as doing so would presumably
> require you to provide the MicroBlaze source as well, which will
> obviously be a problem.

According to the License text, the terms about the modification and
distribution of GPL'ed source code apply only to derivative work,
which is work that takes GPL source code as a starting point. The
Microblaze is clearly not derived work because it does not depend in
any way on the components Genode FX provides.

Regards
Norman

On 28 Aug, 08:27, nfeske wrote:
> Hi Jon,
>
> > Looks interesting. Would the LGPL license be more appropriate though?
> > For example, can you legally distribute a project based on the GPLed
> > Genode that also uses MicroBlaze/NIOS, as doing so would presumably
> > require you to provide the MicroBlaze source as well, which will
> > obviously be a problem.
>
> According to the License text, the terms about the modification and
> distribution of GPL'ed source code apply only to derivative work,
> which is work that takes GPL source code as a starting point. The
> Microblaze is clearly not derived work because it does not depend in
> any way on the components Genode FX provides.

Using GPLed code means that all code in a project must be open source.
No proprietary stuff. Anything that uses Genode is a derived work. If
you want to allow use with proprietary code, then the LGPL should be
used.

See here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html

"The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One
is the GNU Lesser GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice
of license makes a big difference: using the Lesser GPL permits use of
the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a
library makes it available only for free programs."

Jon

On 28 aug, 11:29, Jon Beniston wrote:
> On 28 Aug, 08:27, nfeske wrote:
>
> > Hi Jon,
>
> > > Looks interesting. Would the LGPL license be more appropriate though?
> > > For example, can you legally distribute a project based on the GPLed
> > > Genode that also uses MicroBlaze/NIOS, as doing so would presumably
> > > require you to provide the MicroBlaze source as well, which will
> > > obviously be a problem.
>
> > According to the License text, the terms about the modification and
> > distribution of GPL'ed source code apply only to derivative work,
> > which is work that takes GPL source code as a starting point. The
> > Microblaze is clearly not derived work because it does not depend in
> > any way on the components Genode FX provides.
>
> Using GPLed code means that all code in a project must be open source.
> No proprietary stuff. Anything that uses Genode is a derived work. If
> you want to allow use with proprietary code, then the LGPL should be
> used.
>
> See here:http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
>
> "The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One
> is the GNU Lesser GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice
> of license makes a big difference: using the Lesser GPL permits use of
> the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a
> library makes it available only for free programs."
>
> Jon

if you claim that then you can equally force Xilinx to release source
code of the microblaze
because the mb gcc is GPL licensed and not LPGL licensed

not always ALL project sources are needed to be made public if GPL
based part are
used in the project

depend how you define project and library
i can say its ALL one projects and microblaze is one VHDL library what
is linked to the
stuff compiled with GPL licensed tools, so microblaze also needs to be
GPL, etc..

i think the Xilinx lawer disagree with that

but in generic the GPLxxx stuff is not really applicable today for
FPGA ip cores and related stuff


Antti

> Using GPLed code means that all code in a project must be open source.
> No proprietary stuff. Anything that uses Genode is a derived work. If
> you want to allow use with proprietary code, then the LGPL should be
> used.
>
> See here:http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html

That discussion is going on for ages, for example about binary
graphics drivers in the Linux kernel. I am with the interpretation by
Linus Torvalds that GPL code that is linked to independent (!)
proprietary code does not infect this proprietary code, which is just
common sense. If however, you build a system that depends on GPL
components and you distribute your system, your additions must be
released as GPL. So it is not as easy as "no proprietary stuff" ;-)

In any case, Genode Labs offers proprietary licensing options in
addition to the GPL version of Genode FX. For using Genode FX in a
proprietary product, I suggest to contact Genode Labs directly.

Regards
Norman

> if you claim that then you can equally force Xilinx to release source
> code of the microblaze
> because the mb gcc is GPL licensed and not LPGL licensed

Not at all. GCC is not linked with Microblaze.

> not always ALL project sources are needed to be made public if GPL
> based part are
> used in the project

Correct. Its only if they are linked together.

> depend how you define project and library
> i can say its ALL one projects and microblaze is one VHDL library what
> is linked to the
> stuff compiled with GPL licensed tools, so microblaze also needs to be
> GPL, etc..

I'm not refering the s/w parts of this project - but the VHDL/Verilog
core that gets linked in.

> but in generic the GPLxxx stuff is not really applicable today for
> FPGA ip cores and related stuff

It is if IP cores are being released under the GPL.

Jon

> That discussion is going on for ages, for example about binary
> graphics drivers in the Linux kernel. I am with the interpretation by
> Linus Torvalds that GPL code that is linked to independent (!)
> proprietary code does not infect this proprietary code, which is just
> common sense.

Well, that argument is based on the fact that the proprietary code
isn't statically linked. That is not the case in an FPGA or ASIC. Much
easier to just use the LGPL so there is no confusion, IMHO.

Jon

Jon Beniston wrote:
>> That discussion is going on for ages, for example about binary
>> graphics drivers in the Linux kernel. I am with the interpretation by
>> Linus Torvalds that GPL code that is linked to independent (!)
>> proprietary code does not infect this proprietary code, which is just
>> common sense.
>
> Well, that argument is based on the fact that the proprietary code
> isn't statically linked. That is not the case in an FPGA or ASIC. Much
> easier to just use the LGPL so there is no confusion, IMHO.
>

It's *not* easier to use the LGPL - it is almost equally unsuitable.
The GPL says (roughly) that any code that is directly linked to the
GPL'ed code must also be GPL'ed. You can't use GPL'ed IP and non-GPL'ed
IP in the same FPGA.

The LGPL is a little lighter - it allows you to link the LGPL'ed code
with non-GPL'ed code as long as anyone with the binary is able to get
the source code to the LGPL part, modify it, re-link it, and use the new
version. This is fine for things like dynamically linked libraries on a
desktop OS (that's what it was designed for), but hardly practical for
FPGA IP!

A better choice of license would be what is known as a "modified GPL" or
"GPL with exception" license (or the very similar Mozilla Public
License). Here the GPL is explicitly modified to apply only to the
source files provided - you are free to link them in any way to any
other modules under any other license. This basically means you can use
the modified GPL files as you like, but if you change them you have to
give these changes back to the community.

See for an example of this for an
embedded RTOS.

"Jon Beniston" wrote in message
news:0d15ddf8-ebfd-4863-857d-3f4208728cc2-at-25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On 28 Aug, 08:27, nfeske wrote:
>> Hi Jon,
>>
>> > Looks interesting. Would the LGPL license be more appropriate though?
>> > For example, can you legally distribute a project based on the GPLed
>> > Genode that also uses MicroBlaze/NIOS, as doing so would presumably
>> > require you to provide the MicroBlaze source as well, which will
>> > obviously be a problem.
>>
>> According to the License text, the terms about the modification and
>> distribution of GPL'ed source code apply only to derivative work,
>> which is work that takes GPL source code as a starting point. The
>> Microblaze is clearly not derived work because it does not depend in
>> any way on the components Genode FX provides.
>
> Using GPLed code means that all code in a project must be open source.
> No proprietary stuff. Anything that uses Genode is a derived work. If
> you want to allow use with proprietary code, then the LGPL should be
> used.
>
> See here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
>
> "The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One
> is the GNU Lesser GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice
> of license makes a big difference: using the Lesser GPL permits use of
> the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a
> library makes it available only for free programs."

Yes, and it seems pretty clear. The code you build on top of Genode is
GPL'ed. The underlying stuff that Genode in turn uses -- Microblaze, or even
the FPGA fabric -- is not. The LGPL would differ by allowing your code,
which uses Genode, to remain proprietary. The situation is clearer to see in
more "traditional" software projects. For example, distributing a GPL'ed
library doesn't infer also distributing the Windows operating system source.