[jarmitage]

Nice, it's great to see this project go from C++ rant to reality. Can't wait to never write C++ ever again :)

On licensing, how will it work for creators of open source hardware? Will they still need to pay a licensing fee if they are targeting a specific device with closed driver IP? Or could there be an exception there?

Do you also see yourselves supporting open low-level hardware (RISC-V, FPGA, ...?), and in that case would you consider opening your driver IP for those targets?

[julesrms]

Right now, we haven't got an official position on how we'll handle the back-end licensing, but it's a sensible assumption is that we'll have an open-source reference implementation that people can use, and then our own optimised or custom versions that we can license.

RISC-V is an easy one to support, as our JIT uses LLVM so it's just a case of adding a build flag for that.

FPGA is more interesting. I think there could be some really clever tricks we can do for soul programs which are highly parallel, but that kind of rocket-science stuff is probably going to have to wait until we have a couple of PhD students to work on it :)

[justforyou]

Great ideas, and a road paved with good intentions.

A lot of people have been down this road before, and it doesn't end well for the users.

At least your lawyers are happy.

[justforyou]

Please answer the above questions.

[naewonawonga]

Very important questions, deserving of an answer.