Community Source is Not Open Source

Electronic News, June 26, 2000 by John Sanguinetti

Santa Clara, Calif. The EDA industry grew and prospered as a result of two things that benefited its customers: 1) rapid technological innovation, and 2) high-value, ongoing customer support. EDA tools have always been struggling to keep up with hardware technology, and as a result they have been immature (a euphemism for buggy) and often fragile.

Without good support, many of these products were simply not usable. This is just a fact of EDA life. It may not be ideal, but it does result in hardware designers being able to get their jobs done and produce state-of-the-art electronic designs.

The Internet is redefining distribution methods for all manner of products and services. This is no less true for EDA than it is for airline tickets, steel ingots, pet supplies, and baseball cards. The difference, however, is what happens to the customer after the sale is completed. Most EDA tools are pseudo-organicathey grow and change with experience, and can behave in unexpected ways depending on their care and feeding!

So what happens if software products like EDA tools are distributed online, are only available as web-based applications, or are open-source software that can be downloaded and used or modified? At first glance, it sounds like a recipe for chaos. But there are good examples that can point the way for a successful Internet transition for EDA, too.

Linux is the textbook example. Open to anyone under an open-source license, Linux is evolving on a minute-by-minute basis as programmers around the world modify the program. But while all this is happening the kernel development is strictly the domain of Linus Torvalds and a tight-knit community of like-minded individuals.

A recent Gartner Group research note titled "Debunking Open-Source Myths: Development and Support" noted that successful open-source software products are invariably controlled by a single individual or small developer group. This tight control is important for the commercialization of open-source software, for without it there would be no standardized version and the trust that comes with it. In addition, the Linux user can trust a variety of service providers who have built solid reputations by delivering quality support. You know that you can get your job done using Linux. Without that trust there would be no chance for a mass market to develop.

The lesson here is that at the same time that innovation is not stifled by restrictive licensing, reliability of open-source software must be guaranteed by a recognized authority and support must be available from respected sources. Will this work in EDA? Certainly, if open-source users know that those who are controlling the code have no hidden agendas, and that there are trusted providers of support. Given the inherently unfinished nature of EDA software, quality support is even more important than in other open source software arenas. Without such support, like Red Hat in the Linux market, open source EDA "standards" will never achieve wide adoption, and will remain just wishful thinking on the part of their promoters.

Of course, open source standards must really be open source. The main conditions for qualification as open source software as defined by the Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org) are that the product must be free to redistribute, source code must be available, and that modifications and derivative works must be allowed. Projects that are offered under community-source licenses do not meet these requirements. As a result, there will always be the suspicion that the promoters have hidden agendas. In the absence of an organization to provide independent support, these suspicions will not be dispelled, and the user community simply will not build up the necessary trust in the product for it to become a standard.

Sanguinetti is president of CynApps in Santa Clara. Many of the system level design players are very concerned that the Open SystemC Initiative has a hidden agenda.