News RISC-V Responds to U.S. Lawmakers: Open Standards Are Important

[Admin]

Open standards are crucial for innovation, so RISC-V has to remain open to enable open computing for all.

RISC-V Responds to U.S. Lawmakers: Open Standards Are Important : Read more

 

[hotaru.hino]

If the US government is concerned about RISC-V being open and used by its adversaries...

May as well go after the entire FOSS community while they're at it.

 

[EyadSoftwareEngineer]

Legally you can't make open source platform to become restricted, RISC-V was open source from the beginning and China did use it and add to it for it local needs.

 

[ThomasKinsley]

With ARM maturing to the desktop and RISC-V ascending, we're on the cusp of a new golden era in computing hardware. It would be a shame if that was stopped because of geopolitics.

 

[renz496]

next: block them access to any open source OS so they can't develop their own open source OS.

 

[hotaru251]

not political but they seem to want to ban everything possible at the rate they going.

 

[bit_user]

The fundamental problem with such a move is that the cat is already out of the bag. RISC-V already has world-wide participation and its foundation isn't headquartered in the US.

So, basically, all that would be accomplished by such a move is to lock US companies and tech workers out of what's soon to be one of the biggest ecosystems in computing. To say that would be counterproductive would probably be the understatement of the decade. I sure hope cooler heads prevail, on this one.

 

[bit_user]

May as well go after the entire FOSS community while they're at it.

They're very different, in that most of the players behind RISC-V are commercial businesses. That means there's a lot of money and economic impact at stake, here.

Legally you can't make open source platform to become restricted,

First, RISC-V is not open source. It's an open (and royalty-free) standard. There's a massive difference.

Second, yes laws restricting traffic in such IP (whether open source or not) actually could be passed and (largely) enforced against any commercial entities or notable community members of interest. One unfortunate side-effect is that trying to enforce something like this would almost certainly take resources and attention away from other priorities.

With ARM maturing to the desktop and RISC-V ascending, we're on the cusp of a new golden era in computing hardware. It would be a shame if that was stopped because of geopolitics.

I'm not sure about ARM's long-term fortunes, but RISC-V looks set to happen - with or without the US!

 

[bit_user]

next: block them access to any open source OS so they can't develop their own open source OS.

That ship has sailed. They already have all the IP they need. If they get locked out of the upstream repos, they can simply establish all their own forks. Nothing would be accomplished by this, other than to bifurcate the software ecosystems in very annoying and inefficient ways for any hardware or software looking to straddle the divide.

What's worse: if nobody of consequence joined the US on such a move, the "international" forks would almost certainly become the dominant ones, leaving the US on its own technological island. Ultimately, self-defeating.

 

[watzupken]

Again, there is no point blocking the technology when you have no control over people that can potentially be hired to create the same thing. It is not easy, but with the capital and time, they will eventually catch up and even overtake with the talents. Whatever they try to block, is at best a speed bump, and not going to stop China from progressing.

Not forgetting the fact that R&D requires money. If these technology companies can't sell for whatever sanctions they need to adhere, they have less funds to reinvest in R&D. In the same vein of limiting fabs from producing cutting edge chips for China, it is going to cause losses to the fabs in the near future. The fabs have spent a lot of money expanding over the last few years, and with a significant chunk of income being denied, it is going to cause them pain and slow down progress.

 

[bit_user]

Again, there is no point blocking the technology when you have no control over people that can potentially be hired to create the same thing.

Well... it depends.

For instance ARM designed the AArch64 ISA, using some patents held by ARM. This is what allows them to require a license of anyone who implements the ARM ISA, even if you use none of their other IP. If you implement it without a license, they'll sue you for patent infringement.

So, if RISC-V has a patent pool, then someone could be effectively banned from using it, or parts thereof, simply by restricting access to the underlying patents, regardless of whether or not a license is normally required to implement RISC-V. Of course, that would only work in jurisdictions which respect those hypothetical patents. Still, if Chinese company made RISC-V CPUs which implement the vector extension, and that extension depends on a US patent, which the US Government has restricted from being licensed to Chinese entities, then they could at least ban importation of those processors or anything containing them.

Now, what that wouldn't necessarily prevent is them from designing their own extension (or ground-up ISA) which doesn't rely on that patent. However, not supporting the RISC-V ISA (or an extension, thereof) means they wouldn't be compatible with tools, libraries, and apps which use it. Being shut out of an ecosystem is the really bad part of all this. It means having to create your own ecosystem, which is costly & time-consuming, and then having to get others to adopt it. All of that can put one at an insurmountable market disadvantage. In fact, from what I've heard, RISC-V isn't so great - it derives its main benefits from its large & growing ecosystem!

It is not easy, but with the capital and time, they will eventually catch up and even overtake with the talents. Whatever they try to block, is at best a speed bump, and not going to stop China from progressing.

If you're talking about something like semiconductor manufacturing, the trouble is that existing players are continuing to evolve quite rapidly. So, it's not enough merely to reach where they're at, today. If you don't want to be at a competitive disadvantage, you have to catch up to where they'll be, several years down the road. That's not easy, especially if it means having to reinvent decades' worth of innovation & infrastructure!

Sure, technology is "leaky", and a lot of the IP has already leaked. That doesn't necessarily make technology sanctions a fruitless exercise. They're not a long-term solution, of course. They're best used in a tactical fashion.

 

[sygreenblum]

I'm curious. The designs and documentation are already out in the open and the entire world has access. How exactly do restrict that?

 

[bit_user]

I'm curious. The designs and documentation are already out in the open and the entire world has access.

No, not designs. If you designed a chip which implemented the RISC-V instruction set, there's nothing compelling you to release the design for it to the public. The vast majority of RISC-V implementations are proprietary, just like CPUs implementing any other ISA.

How exactly do restrict that?

There are several things you could restrict:

• The contribution of US patent holders' patents to the RISC-V patent pool (I'm assuming one exists, BTW).
• The participation of US-based individuals & companies in future developments of the RISC-V ISA and architecture standards.
• The participation of same in adding support for RISC-V ISA in software products.
• The sale of software by same for supporting the design of RISC-V CPUs & systems.
• The sale & support of RISC-V IP to restricted entities.
• The sale & support of software for RISC-V systems.

...just to give you a taste.

All they have to do is declare that RISC-V is a dual-use technology (i.e. civilian & military) and then they can start regulating it like a munition. Would that be a bad decision? Yes, big time.

 

[sygreenblum]

No, not designs. If you designed a chip which implemented the RISC-V instruction set, there's nothing compelling you to release the design for it to the public. The vast majority of RISC-V implementations are proprietary, just like CPUs implementing any other ISA.


There are several things you could restrict:

• The contribution of US patent holders' patents to the RISC-V patent pool (I'm assuming one exists, BTW).
• The participation of US-based individuals & companies in future developments of the RISC-V ISA and architecture standards.
• The participation of same in adding support for RISC-V ISA in software products.
• The sale of software by same for supporting the design of RISC-V CPUs & systems.
• The sale & support of RISC-V IP to restricted entities.
• The sale & support of software for RISC-V systems.

...just to give you a taste.

All they have to do is declare that RISC-V is a dual-use technology (i.e. civilian & military) and then they can start regulating it like a munition. Would that be a bad decision? Yes, big time.

Perhaps but China has never cared about legally purchasing software, or patents and they're really good at stealing tech. I just don't see this genie going back in the bottle.

 

[bit_user]

I just don't see this genie going back in the bottle.

Perhaps you didn't see my earlier posts, but that's basically what I've been saying. I took your question as asking what Congress could do, not how effective it would be.

 

[sygreenblum]

Perhaps you didn't see my earlier posts, but that's basically what I've been saying. I took your question as asking what Congress could do, not how effective it would be.

I know. Sorry, if sounded like debating something. That wasn't my intention.