[hackyhacky]

> One of the best parts about RiscV is that you can teach a freshman level architecture class or a senior level chip building project with an ISA that is actually used.

Same could be said of MIPS.

My understanding is the RISC-V raison d'etre is rather avoidance of patented/copywritten designs.

[musicale]

As you indicate, MIPS was widely used in computer architecture courses and textbooks, including pre-RISC-V editions of Patterson & Hennessy (Computer Organization & Design) and Harris & Harris (Digital Design and Computer Architecture.

In spite of the currently mediocre RISC-V implementations, RISC-V seems to have more of a future and isn't clouded by ISA IP issues, as you note.

[adgjlsfhk1]

the avoidance of patent/copyright is critical for (legally) having students design their own chips. MIPS was pretty good (and widely used) for teaching assembly, but pretty bad for teaching a class where students design chips

[musicale]

This is largely contradicted by the (pre RISC-V) MIPS editions of Patterson & Hennessy, Harris & Harris, etc., which teach you how to design a MIPS datapath (at the gate level.)

Regarding silicon implementations, consider that 1) you can synthesize it from HDL/RTL designs using modern CAD tools, and 2) MIPS was originally designed to be simple enough for grad students to implement with the primitive CAD tools of the 1980s (basically semi-manual layout).

[userbinator]

MIPS patents have long expired too (and incidentally for any other CPU released prior to 2006), so that's a moot point.