|
Message
From: webmaster at opencores.org<webmaster@o...>
Date: Mon May 12 12:03:24 CEST 2008
Subject: [oc] How to sell an open core?
Hi Günter,
We appreciate your input and we completely agree with your
statements. It’s good that this topic has come up, so that we can start
a discussion about improvements.
We encourage more people to let us know what functions/improvements
that you would like to see on OpenCores and try to prioritize them.
We have many ideas/plans on how to make OpenCores better, both
from a developer standpoint and also from an “IP-users” perspective.
It’s important that there is a “win-win” partnership between the
developers and users.
We also would like to invite OpenCores users with web-development
expertise to help us improve OpenCores website. Send an email to
webmaster@o... with a short description of your expertise if
you want to contribute.
Best regards,
The OC-team
----- Original Message -----
From: Günter Dannoritzer<dannoritzer@w...>
To:
Date: Fri May 9 12:31:02 CEST 2008
Subject: [oc] How to sell an open core?
> marcus.erlandsson at opencores.org wrote:
> > Providing OpenSource IP (OSIP) is necessary in order to take
> the next
> > step up in design methodology, we can’t re-invent the
> wheel for every
> > design.
> > Another beauty with OSIP is that if the core is frequently
> used, then
> > this core is more verified then commercial cores, since its
> being
> > tested by so many different engineers world-wide in different
> ways.
> I fully agree. But opencores.org lacks a feed back here.
> At the moment it is a one way street. There are developers that put
> up
> code on the web page. Then there are users that use the code.
> The first think I don't like is, that already the developer can not
> get
> any feed back from the download form. What I mean is, if someone
> wants
> to download the code, s/he has to fill out a form. The developer
> does
> not get any feed back from that.
> The next lack is that there is no encouragement for a user to
> provide
> feed back.
> It would be great if a user could provide feed back about how
> simple or
> complicated it was to implement a core. Then the developer could
> get
> some ranking about how good his/her cores are.
> In addition there could be a statistic how often a core got
> implemented
> in what technology.
> > The benefits from a developer standpoint are to get help with
> the
> > extensive work in verifying the core. We all know that the
> design
> > proportion of an IP is 10-20% and the rest is
> simulation/verification.
> Now, I think that opencores should also allow some more distinction
> here. You are saying that an implemented core improves the core
> through
> feed back by the user. But that feed back is not encouraged. Some
> people
> may even not give it, as they don't want to show that they are
> using
> that core.
> On the other side, a developer on opencores is considered a
> developer of
> a core. That is somewhat natural, as that is at the end all a user
> wants. But actually, what a user wants is a verified core. So why
> not
> also have the possibility to add a verification project?
> For example, Teal/Truss http://trusster.com is a C++ based
> verification
> framework and the developers used the opencores UART in one of the
> examples. It would be great if they could have set up a new project
> for
> their code and add a link to the UART project.
> Then a user going to the UART project page, would see that someone
> else
> did some verification effort to that core, not related to the
> developer.
> I mean part of the verification problem is, that the developer
> tends to
> be blind for own development errors, so having someone else do the
> verification will increase quality.
> Just some thought and sorry for the long post.
> Cheers,
> Guenter
>
>
|
 |
Browse
