Re: [oc] CAN core

[Shashi Thutupalli <stpalli@yahoo.com>]

Hmm. All the talk about legality and jail suddenly makes me skeptical about the
future of the project. Shall we go ahead with it or drop it right at the start?
Can we have a veto vote (any ONE saying no means no to the whole idea) on
this??
I'm still FOR IT.

Regards,
Shashi
--- "Martin.J Thompson" <Martin.J.Thompson@trw.com> wrote:
> >That's corect
> >
> >Byteflight is the way to go is certainly true or more
> >suitable will be FlexRay  as an when it comes out (Byteflight spec is
> >incorporated in FlexRay)
> >
> >Which becomes 'THE" standard for by-wire applications is yet to be decided.
> >
> >Since CAN is so widely used , it would be good to have a HDL implementation
> >of it.
> >
> >A VHDL CAN IP license roughly costs 10,000 Euros!
> >
> 
> That little :-)?
> 
> >For TTP/C , Yes! we have to be careful about layers! (for that matter any of
> >these protocols :) )
> >
> >But I think we can go ahead with CAN (and hope there are no legal
> >implications!)
> >
> 
> IIRC the seller of any system with CAN in it has to pay Bosch a small license
> fee (3 pfennigs per node?).  In the case of microcontrollers this is done by
> the manufacturer of the uP, which is passed on to the OEM, but I'm not sure
> what would happen in the case of an FPGA implementation... and IANAL!
> 
> >Or maybe all this is not such a good idea, I certainly don't want to go jail
> >for all this
> >
> 
> I don't think it would come to that, but you may get "cease and desist"ed
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from cores mailing list please visit
http://www.opencores.org/mailinglists.shtml


=====
"I know the answer!  The answer lies within the heart of all mankind! The answer is twelve?  I think I'm in the wrong building."
-- Charles Schulz

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
--
To unsubscribe from cores mailing list please visit http://www.opencores.org/mailinglists.shtml