[KirillPanov]

> and in particular were not forced to use OpenLane and were not limited to 48 pins controlled by a "Management Engine".

That's because they used TSMC, not SkyWater.

I think you're deliberately creating confusion here.

Also, as the webpage states, they signed TSMC's NDA:

> LIP6 were able to create the GDS-II tape-out under NDA

Sure, if you sign the NDAs, you can use whatever toolflow you want.

Look, I don't mean to in any way denigrate your techinical achievement here, and I have no beef with your project. But the absence of no-NDA foundry access is a huge, massive obstacle to a truly public and free open-source ecosystem, and lately there have been a lot of people and organizations papering over that problem and bamboozling software folk who aren't aware of the issue and its details. Hiding the problem isn't going to get it fixed.

[lkcl]

> Also, as your webpage states, you signed TSMC's NDA:

FALSE. again. i do not work for LIP6. i do not work for Chips4Makers. i am an independent *LIBRE* Developer. i have NEVVERRRR signed a Foundry NDA and, having a background involving security analysis and Reverse-Engineering, it would be suicidally and monumentally stupid and counter-productive for me, personally, to do so.

please try to not conflate matters (twice in succession) that you haven't checked or read properly. the best thing to do is to ask questions, such as:

"You're a Libre Project. that has significant implications that everything is entirely Libre. I notice however that you say that someone signed a Foundry NDA? what impact did this have for you? did it stop you from releasing any source code as per obligations of LIBRE Licenses?"

and then i can answer positively and in a friendly way rather than having to publicly waste both my time and that of readers in first unpicking the mistakes, embarrassing you in the process (which risks a public confrontation that annoys everybody even more), and it all goes to hell pretty quickly after that.

answering the question above that you didn't ask: as you know there are about five layers of NDAs in the Silicon Industry.

we've managed to bust through three of those, and so have managed - as a LIBRE Team - to fulfil our obligations both to our funding body, NLnet, under their Privacy and Enhanced Trust Programme, and to Libre/Open Hardware developers by releasing all HDL under LGPLv3 Licenses

     https://git.libre-soc.org

and using Libre-Licensed VLSI tools

and using Libre-Licensed Cell Libraries

now, the TEAM THAT DEVELOPED the VLSI tool - signed a TSMC NDA.

      NOBODY ON THE LIBRE-SOC TEAM SIGNED THAT NDA.

also, Chips4Makers - the developers of FlexLib - signed a TSMC NDA

      CHIPS4MAKERS != Libre-SOC

we are three separate and INDEPENDENT teams, working together, to tackle an insane situation, at different levels. i'll say it again:

      LIBRE-SOC HAS NOT SIGNED AAAANNNYYYYY FOUNDRY NDAs.

are we clear about that, now?

there happens also to be another team, Libre-Silicon, also funded by NLnet, who are developing an actual Libre VLSI process and actually developing a mini home-grown Fab.

then there is another NLnet-sponsored project, working with the Libre Silicon team, to develop another Libre-Licensed Standard Cell Library, that is targetted at Libre-Silicon's PDK (when it's available)

  https://nlnet.nl/project/LibreSiliconStandardCellLibrary/

however neither of these are ready, so we went with the pragmatic route, after exhausting all other options: the parallel track.