This blog post is for those who missed the news on Fedora-devel mailing lists.
The use of SystemC is now widely spread in many semiconductor companies. Its entry to Fedora Electronic Lab was considered a must, but unfortunately was blocked due to LEGAL issues.
SystemC™ is a language built in standard C++ by extending the language with the use of class libraries. SystemC addresses the need for a system design and verification language that spans hardware and software.
In depth details:
SystemC’s entrance on Fedora repositories would considerably elevate FEL’s professional status. We will attract more professionals than hobbyists.
Fedora Electronic Lab is a platform for designing hardware with opensource software. Cadence, Mentor Graphics and Synopsys, three big leading ‘enemies’ companies in the semiconductor world have worked together for systemc.
Thus with systemc in the fedora repositories,
- we could provide quality and entreprise solutions to our Fedora Users.
- more universities or hardware engineers will be interested.
- more chances having embedded solutions by FEL in the future.
There is already a Linux distribution shipping systemc, SCLinux
Aside FEL is shipping VHDL and Verilog support, systemc’s inclusion would simply be the best professional and entreprise solution that we can provide.
I am not a lawyer. Thus TomCallaway and Red Hat Lawyers kindly replied to me in depth details why SYSTEMC OPEN SOURCE LICENSE v2.3 is not compatible with Fedora Licenses policies.
FSF considers this license as non-free, though the sources are available for download. I’ve just requested a package review for systemc. Another issue is that to obtain the sources, one has to subscribe on their website.
.
Welcome to the club, I was told that Moonlight, despite being under a perfectly suitable license was considered blocked by legal due to moralization.. I mean concerns over the way Novell conducts business with their partners.
Lawyers.. they are plainly a hinderance to producing quality Free Software but we kinda need them at times.
“Welcome to the club, I was told that Moonlight, despite being under a perfectly suitable license”
Is that a deliberate lie or merely self delusion? SystemC is clearly a non-free license and Moonlight is clearly declared by Novell to only have a patent license for SUSE product.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems#Moonlight
the way FSF defines “non-free” is like extremists.
over here, with systemc, I have the sources and I could ease the pain of many engineers worldwide by providing it with FEL.
Chitlesh, did you even try to talk to the SystemC upstream to see if they were willing to correct the issues we identified with their license that made it non-free?
We spent a fair amount of time writing that up and sending it to you. If you’re not willing to try to work with upstream to make these changes, please let me know, and I’ll try.
“the way FSF defines “non-free” is like extremists.”
Do you want turn Fedora into Ubuntu? Fedora doesn’t accept proprietary software. It doesn’t matter much that some source code under restrictive licenses are available.
Just to answer the anonymous writer, you are wrong, wrong and wrong.
I’ve asked the fedora community about the licensing compatibilities. Tom did a great job.
This blog post is just a follower up of the “systemc” status for Fedora Electronic Lab. In other words to inform you was FEL could be providing you.
Turning Fedora into Ubuntu is just a stupid remark, from a unknown person.
While this won’t allow you to put the package on the FEL images, you could submit it to RPMFusion’s non-free section.
“
I’ve asked the fedora community about the licensing compatibilities. Tom did a great job.”
Do you know how much FSF has helped in answering licensing questions that forms the basis of Fedora philosophy? If you are aware, why are you calling them extremists when the distribution you are contributing to, follows the same policy?
“In other words to inform you was FEL could be providing you. “
FEL shouldn’t be providing proprietary software. If it does, I wouldn’t touch it at all. So SystemC is straight out unless they relicense. Did you even bother contacting upstream?
> FEL shouldn't be providing proprietary
> software. If it does, I wouldn't touch
> it at all.
haven't you read the title ?
SystemC was put aside ! meaning it will NOT be in FEL !!!
Why are you so furious about it when It will not be in FEL !!!
All I wanted is to give my FEL users the chance to use systemc for there hardware design. Now because of the license that can't be.
there are many packages of FEL I can't give with FEL.
Hardware design based on design flows. At each stage of any design flows there is a different tool. So since FSF needs "free" software, I can't satisfy a complete design flow with industry needs. It's good to give tools to amateurs, but would that not be better when professional work can be with FEL ?
Well before talking about licenses, do you know how hard is to propose a microelectronic simulation platform when it is on the edge being obsolete, (since there are not always FSF's free tool) ? Semiconductor industry's technologies are now < 1micron. Youhoo, who has the million euros to _characterize_ technology libraries (analog and digital) for FEL ? Would you ? If you would, do you have the semiconductor physics knowledge ? Are you experience in the field ? would guarantee support for those libraries?…
Before judging my interest of including systemc for FEL, please do think hardware design and not software. Many people don't understand that.
My job is to propose a microelectronic simulation platform for Fedora. I would only provide (similar) tools that are being used in a real Design Centre. Obsolete tools aren't in my package todo list. If there are licenses issues, I'll talk to TomCallaway. He is our liaison officer with FSF and RedHat lawyers. If Tom says it can't be in Fedora, I will listen to him as I did for systemc.
Now, with our new recruits we are planning to provide embedded design tools. We are making progress though we are only 4.
We did no harm at all when dropping systemc for FEL.
Why are you judging us as if we are including systemc ?
[...] restricts the distribution of SystemC™’s sources, Fedora cannot ship the RPM. You can learn more about the effort we’ve put to solve this license issue, but in vain. SystemC is even not compatible with [...]
I did not understand if you did check upstream.
What haven’t you understood ?
Did you check with the SystemC authors (the upstream), to see if they are willing to modify their license and correct the issues that spot and the Red Hat lawyers identified, in order to make the license free and thus compatible with Fedora?
I think you may have misinterpreted spot’s answer.
It’s not a “No!”. It’s an “there’s what we need to fix”. A starting point for a discussion with the SystemC developers, to try and see if the problem could be fixed at it’s roots.
Spot himself is giving you pointers:
> We spent a fair amount of time writing that up
> and sending it to you. If you’re not willing to
> try to work with upstream to make these changes,
> please let me know, and I’ll try.
I did my best, and even talked to their partners. I have spent too some time with this, I have to focus on other things, now. If you want to push it for me, I’ll be glad to help you.
[...] is no secret for everyone that for a while I wish to see SystemC in Fedora repositories. However, a small glitch within the license in terms of redistribution prevents us from shipping [...]