All,
Vassilios is correct, and I support his view. These discussions, while
interesting, have little chance to directly further the development progress of
the group, which has moved forward, beyond these issues, in an open process
over a substantial period of time.
Steve
At 03:01 PM 12/17/98, Vassilios Gerousis wrote:
>Dear New Members,
> The discussion about the start of DCWG+SLDA have been discussed
> before and has been voted on by both the DCWG and OVI board (the owner)
> of the standard.
>
> Initial discussion with Synopsys by DCWG and the normal process of
> OPEN AND PUBLICLY OWNED strawman were discussed at multiple meetings
> and voted on. As a normal process of OVI, we will deal with OPEN
> and publicly owned standard.
>
> Also, the decision to go with Ambit (Cadence) and the offer from IBM
> of Einstimer are the primary sources for our language. We should
> concentrate on these only. If Synopsys wants to donate their language
> with no license and no conditions, then there is a formal process to do
> so.
>
> I hope our efforts should concentrate on how to move forward and NOT
> backward. Members of SLDA, need to know that a process has been
followed
> and Synopsys was given all chances to contribute.
>
> Let us make progress based on Cadence and hopefully IBM.
>
>Best Regards
>
>Vassilios
>OVI Technical Chairman
>-------------------------------------------------
>
>
>> From owner-dcwg@eda.org Thu Dec 17 14:44 MET 1998
>> X-Envelope-Sender-Is: owner-dcwg@eda.org (at relayer david.siemens.de)
>> X-Authentication-Warning: server.eda.org: majordom set sender to
>owner-dcwg@eda.org using -f
>> To: dcwg@eda.org
>> Subject: Re: [Re: DC-WG: Declarational versus Executional
>ConstraintLanguages]
>> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 08:21:11 -0500
>> From: Bob Dilly <dilly@btv.ibm.com>
>>
>> You got me thinking, Dave, about "contamination" too.
>> Something we work at being attentive to here. I'm not
>> an attorney, but I get concerned when asked to even
>> "review" intellectual property that's related to the
>> area I am working in.
>>
>> If Synopsys charges for access to their standard, then
>> one should be careful about separating such access from
>> work on the DC-WG standard, lest it become "encumbered".
>> There seems to be consensus that its desirable for the
>> standard to be freely available- a topic of some discussion
>> with regard to the Cadence donation.
>>
>> Perhaps it would be best to let Synopsys compare the
>> direction of DC-WG versus Synopsys Design Constraints (SDC)
>> until the legal implications are understood.
>>
>> Sorry, Ibna.
>>
>> Respectfully...... Bob
>>
>>
>>
>> >Ibna, you write:
>> >
>> > The web site shows a list price for Liberty (Synopsys
>> > Logic Design Library format) license for EDA vendors
>> > that do not wish to trade formats. Synopsys customers
>> > are already licensed for liberty. We do not license
>> > (SDF or Liberty) the joint committee, but the rather
>> > each individual member company. It's likely that most or
>> > all members are already licensed.
>> >
>> >Certainly AverStar is not, and I suspect that the University of
>> >Cincinatti is not. This rather restricts our ability to review and
>> >reflect on the syntax others are discussing.
>> >
>> > Dave Barton <*>
>> > dlb@averstar.com )0(
>> > http://www.averstar.com/~dlb
>> >
Regards,
Steve
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------+
| Steven E. Schulz, P.E. | Internet: ses@ti.com |
| Senior Member, Technical Staff | Voice: (972) 480-1662 |
| Advanced ASIC Architecture | FAX: (972) 480-2356 |
| Semiconductor Group | P.O. Box 660199, M/S 8645 |
| Texas Instruments | Dallas, Tx. 75266-0199 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------+
--=====================_511018240==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
--=====================_511018240==_.ALT--