> Vortex86 implements i586, which should surely be IP-unencumbered by now?
Even if you go from the launch date and not the last errata, the i586 architecture is only 28 years old. In today's world of copyright, that's practically an infant.
To be clear of most patents, you generally need at least thirty years, and copyrights are generally more than twice that number.
You will probably require a license from Intel. (Though whether or not they care enough to enforce things is another matter entirely).
I would love to see a proper legal analysis of this.
From what I recall, the closest thing to an answer I've received in the past is that you can not use the manuals to a modern x86 chip (or other part) to learn the instruction set. The use of any copyrighted material infects you project if the rights holder is particularly egregious about enforcement to that level.
It's the same thing with the IBM PC BIOS reverse engineering. If you'd seen the BIOS manual, you couldn't work on the clone. I can't recall if that was purely seeing it or because the source code to the IBM BIOS was printed in the back of the manual.
I know Intel, Microchip, and ARM have aggressively shut down any FPGA project that implements an instruction-level compatible core of x86, AVR, PIC, or ARM CPU. Intel seemingly hasn't gone after any of the 16-bit x86 core implementation, but I haven't seen an open source 386 or newer core.
I can understand patents (though i thought it'd be 17-20 years, not 30) but why would they need to worry about copyright to make new implementation of the x86 instruction set?
That being said, back in the day there was concern about all of that, hence why a Z80 is binary compatible with an 8080, but has different mnemonics. It's all LD this ST that, as opposed to the 8080's MOV.
I was always confused about patents, copyrights and licenses when it comes to hardware.
Surely if you do a (clean-room) implementation of hardware that is interface compatible with existing hardware that is ok? Isn't that how we got the IBM PC Clones?
IBM encouraging developers to target their BIOS and not the hardware, and BIOS clean room designs is where we got the IBM PC clones - but that's still the world of software. (Note: IBM managed to take clones by Eagle Computer and Corona Data Systems off the market because the software wasn't a clean room design).
The IBM PC's pluggable design with already existing standard ports made it easy to build clones, because it wasn't the hardware that was being interfaced with. If you could clone the BIOS and have that speak to your components however you wanted, then you could make an IBM compatible.
From my understand this is correct to a point but a more pressing issue is that some specific implementations of algorithms in hardware may be under patent.
If this is the case it means a competitor can use an alternative design that is less efficient at the cost of space/heat but that can result in substantially less competitive product.
