By: Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar), August 31, 2022 9:34 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
anon (a.delete@this.non.com) on August 31, 2022 6:50 pm wrote:
> Wes Felter (wmf.delete@this.felter.org) on August 31, 2022 4:47 pm wrote:
> > The Register adds a tidbit: "According to people familiar with the matter, Qualcomm's architectural
> > license today is limited to its mobile processors, while Nuvia's applies to datacenter chips."
>
> Odd, since Centriq was a custom implementation, thus should have required a license. Or did ARM do
> some shenanigans with needing new licenses for newer architecture versions? Perhaps Nuvia's is a V9.
Or maybe Qualcomm previously had a license that allowed server designs but they turned it in / let it expire or whatever when they canceled their server efforts. I assume ARM charges some sort of annual fee for architectural licenses, and if they charge separately for different license types they might have decided not to pay for the server license once they gave up on Centriq.
Obviously there is more to this story than we have yet, but the ARM architectural licenses are a bit less 'blanket' than they had previously been assumed to be.
> Wes Felter (wmf.delete@this.felter.org) on August 31, 2022 4:47 pm wrote:
> > The Register adds a tidbit: "According to people familiar with the matter, Qualcomm's architectural
> > license today is limited to its mobile processors, while Nuvia's applies to datacenter chips."
>
> Odd, since Centriq was a custom implementation, thus should have required a license. Or did ARM do
> some shenanigans with needing new licenses for newer architecture versions? Perhaps Nuvia's is a V9.
Or maybe Qualcomm previously had a license that allowed server designs but they turned it in / let it expire or whatever when they canceled their server efforts. I assume ARM charges some sort of annual fee for architectural licenses, and if they charge separately for different license types they might have decided not to pay for the server license once they gave up on Centriq.
Obviously there is more to this story than we have yet, but the ARM architectural licenses are a bit less 'blanket' than they had previously been assumed to be.
