[Libre-soc-dev] Coloquinte legalizer failure

[Staf Verhaegen]

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton schreef op za 05-12-2020 om 02:07 [+0000]:
> however we need someone other that Staf to port FlexLib to non-NDA'd
> PDKs such as Skywater 130nm, because aFoundry could claim that because
> Staf developed FlexLib, he inadvertently or deliberately put NDA
> details into the (example, Skywater 130nm) port, even though the port
> is neither TSMC nor 180nm.

You seem to mix up parts of our conversations.
I don't see a problem with porting FlexLib to open PDKs as the Sky130.
I would not see the point of FlexLib being open source if it would not
be usable by everyone for open PDKs.
What I don't want to guarantee is that layout generated by using
FlexLib for a technology that is under NDA can be transformed to an
abstract layout that can be made public. Neither that someone that has
not signed the NDA can regenerate such an abstract layout.
IMO such a requirement would make development of optimizations too
involved and I don't want to have to think about this each time I make
changes to FlexLib. Jean-Paul has other opinion and LIP6 is still
looking at it. We agreed that I don't need to take this requirement
into account during FlexLib development.

So my traget is the following for FlexLib: people who want to redo a
layout for a NDAed technology need to sign the NDA themselves. For open
PDKs all people can redo layouts without any paperwork involved.

greets,
Staf.