Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!agate!shelby!neon!roland From: roland@CS.Stanford.EDU (Roland Conybeare) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: P1754 Message-ID: Date: 20 Nov 90 00:08:21 GMT References: <1990Nov16.225515.494@zoo.toronto.edu> Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Organization: Stanford University Lines: 28 In-Reply-To: henry@zoo.toronto.edu's message of 16 Nov 90 22:55:15 GMT henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >aglew@crhc.uiuc.edu (Andy Glew) writes: >Are comp.arch readers aware of IEEE Standards Project "P1754: Standard >for an Open Microprocessor Architecture", whose purpose is to define >an open, non-proprietary, microprocessor architecture, based on SPARC... Gah. It wasn't bad enough that every manufacturer managed to get his favorite bus canonized as an IEEE standard? Now we're in for the same thing with instruction sets. What a waste of time and effort. I understand that the SPARC licencing agreement is exclusive. However there's a clause that voids the exclusive nature if SPARC becomes public domain. P1754 means that Sun will no longer receive licensing fees for SPARC, and will lose control over its evolution. I believe Sun hopes to enlarge the market for SPARC machines by inviting competition (this seems like an extraordinary action to me!). Sun wins if it keeps market share & SPARCs become commonplace. On the other hand Sun may lose to superior manufacturing. Interesting times.. Roland Conybeare roland@cs.Stanford.EDU