Subject: (no subject)
From: Paul J. Menchini (mench@mench.com)
Date: Thu Jun 12 2003 - 11:35:17 PDT
Received: from austin.si2.org (austin.si2.org [207.207.12.130])
by server.eda.org (8.12.0.Beta7/8.12.0.Beta7) with ESMTP id h5CDZFcF019621
for <stds-dasc@dasc.org>; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 06:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (cottrell@localhost)
by austin.si2.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA27045;
Thu, 12 Jun 2003 08:35:11 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 08:35:11 -0500 (CDT)
From: Don Cottrell <cottrell@si2.org>
To: John Willis <john.willis@ftlsys.com>
cc: Jim Lewis <Jim@synthworks.com>, stds-dasc@server.dasc.org
Subject: Re: Electronic Standards Delivery Issue
In-Reply-To: <326330000.1055431311@madison.ftlsystems.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10306120832240.26927-100000@si2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
One thing to remember is that the publication of standards is not "free".
Just hosting and maintaining the [IEEE] www site from where the referred
to standards can be found and accessed has a cost associated with it. So
does the publication of style guides for these standards and the final
reviews by IEEE - and the IEEE mailing lists,.....
Don C
Don Cottrell
Si2 Fellow: Emerging Technologies
(512) 342-2244 extension 307
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, John Willis wrote:
> Jim,
>
> While few designers want to directly read the packages
> end-to-end, many would like the package text to appear
> as part of the symbolic debug infrastructure. This
> gets back to the conditions under which contributed
> code can be displayed.
>
> After spending several YEARS trying to work out viable
> license conditions without visible progress at IEEE,
> FTL went down the path of developing a distinct set of
> reference manuals that were free of IEEE copyright.
> These references include related standards such as
> 1164. To avoid copyright entanglement, we can't even
> make them available directly to IEEE working groups.
>
> IEEE Standards might be able to following the Free
> Software Foundation business model, which sells paper
> copies of freely available documentation at reasonable
> production prices. Companies buy such manuals in order
> to support FSF, bringing in modest revenue.
>
> DASC runs on member-supported dues. It appears that
> the only editing of technical value is provided by Paul
> Menchini (who is sadly not generally paid by IEEE). It
> seems like a combination of external support for IEEE
> Standards and greatly reducing their overhead would be
> a very viable step forward but hard to implement.
>
> I strongly support your proposal to make the use of
> DASC standards free of cost, however after several
> years of trying to work with IEEE at this point and
> even taking new standards work to other bodies (such
> as EIA) with directly contributed funding, it is hard
> to apply more time to the IEEE situation.
>
> Best regards, John
>
> --On Wednesday, June 11, 2003 06:27:59 PM -0700 Jim Lewis
> <Jim@synthworks.com> wrote:
>
> > All,
> > First, will giving away the packages really solve anything?
> > This is not clear to me. Many designers/users do not use
> > packages in their designs and, hence, may not be inclined to
> > read the packages if they were available. What I think would
> > be most beneficial is a users guide with short man page like
> > descriptions of the function, its arguments, and its usage.
> > This type of a document would not violate IEEE's copyrights.
> > Unfortunately this is left to VHDL books and many of the
> > books have ignored the packages like like std_logic_1164 and
> > numeric_std.
> >
> > Second, what if IEEE does agree to give away packages.
> > Consider IEEE Std 1076.3-1987.
> > This standard has 49 pages (including the annex).
> > 5 pages are front material.
> > 10 pages are the main part of the standard (includes TOC).
> > 29 pages are the listing of the packages: numeric_bit & numeric_std.
> > 5 pages are the annex.
> >
> > So giving away the packages basically gives away 2/3 of the
> > content of this standard (I did not count the front material).
> > If IEEE does this, what is left to sell? Nothing really.
> >
> > In reality, asking IEEE to give away these packages is asking
> > IEEE to give away the standard. I went to a presentation
> > that IEEE SA gave in Portland. They said that giving away is
> > one of the future road maps they are considering. They have
> > even done some experiments in this area with the ethernet
> > standards. What can we do to encourage more of this?
> >
> > The problem with giving away standards seems to be in the
> > business model. Who funds balloting standards? What
> > I have heard is that the standards groups are run
> > independently of IEEE (to me this means that no IEEE dues
> > are used to fund standards efforts). To me this seems
> > to be the root of the issue.
> >
> > I join IEEE, IEEE-CS, and DASC solely to support VHDL and
> > EDA standards. Yet my dues get applied to pay for programs
> > and magazines that have a lesser value to me than free
> > standards. What are the core values of IEEE? I
> > thought IEEE was a premiere standards development
> > organization. If that is the case, why don't they fund
> > standards development and distribution? I would rather
> > have free standards than have IEEE Spectrum and IEEE Computer
> > magazines (particularly paper magazines in an electronic era).
> > I would rather have free standards than have free on-line
> > tutorials.
> >
> > The only way to have balloted standards is to have someone
> > fund the balloting. I think the funding should come from
> > the IEEE general membership. I also think that in DASC and
> > IEEE as a whole that there are enough like minded people to
> > make this happen if it is something that we can vote on
> > (meaning in a general membership type of vote).
> >
> > We are entering the era of open standards. If IEEE is going to
> > be remain a part of the standards process, they need to find a way
> > to make standards free. Perhaps a compromise would be for IEEE
> > standards to be free to any IEEE member.
> >
> >
> > With that said, I don't necessarily like the business model
> > of Accellera either as Accellera is not an open process.
> > Accellera seems to follow the golden rule of standards:
> > those who pay with gold, get to vote.
> >
> >
> > Patents are a bear of a problem. I think I agree with IEEE's
> > policy on patents. I don't think that the only or best way to
> > implement a standard should require the licensing of a patent.
> > Only the patent holder (or applicant) can help ensure this.
> > Sure it is problematic and costly for the patent holder to make
> > sure one of their patents does not get incorporated into a
> > standard, but who else can do it. From the other point of
> > view, it could be devastating to develop a product based
> > on a standard and when you go to sell it, get a notice that
> > you are violating a patent. In fact, if reasonable terms could
> > not be reached, the company could end up out of business.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> John Willis jwillis@ftlsys.com
> FTL Systems Inc. FTL Systems UK Ltd
> 1620 Greenview Drive SW 2 Venture Road
> Rochester, MN 55902 Chilworth Science Park
> United States United Kingdom
> 1.507.288.3154 (Voice) 44.2380.767.700(Voice)
> 1.507.289.1108 (FAX) 44.2380.760.543 (FAX)
> http://www.ftlsystems.com http://www.ftlsystems.co.uk
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Jun 12 2003 - 11:43:46 PDT