China Develops Their Own CPU: The "Dragon Chip"

vaxzilla writes "China's People's Daily Online is reporting in this article that the Computer Institution of the Chinese Academy of Science have developed a new CPU, which they're calling the Dragon Chip. The report isn't clear on the technical details of the chip, though it does state, somewhat confusingly, that it, `is based on the RISC structure, a totally another standard. Therefore, it will not fall into the intellectual property right trap.' They're running Linux on the chip and have built a server around it, Soaring Dragon. It looks like China is starting to tell both Microsoft and Intel to take a hike. Interesting times are ahead."

Comments

A serious curiousity question

[A nonymous Coward]

Are the Chinese going to release their mods to the GPLd code when they distribute their version of Linux? Is there anything anybody over here can do about it if they don't? In particular, will the US government, usually real quick to condemn IP violations and theft when there's money involved, lean on the Chinese government to obey the GPL?

It would be interesting to figure out the CPU details from the code they release...

Re:A serious curiousity question

[ProfessorPuke]

It's quite likely that most Chinese-government changes to GPL code will make it out, somehow. Firstly, they might want to appear to obey the WIPO regulations they've agreed to. (Not likely to be a big factor in their behavior, though).

Even if they don't feel bound to the license, they still might desire code release- either to take some worldwide market-share from Microsoft (and hurt a leading symbol of US capitalism), or more likely, to benefit from improvements made by generous hackers in Japan, Europe, and America.

And then, if the government STILL doesn't want to release the code, it might filter out anyhow. Its a big country, and even the most draconian restrictions would have trouble intercepting 2 megabytes of nondescript patches. Sure, they might restrict source code access to a small group of closely monitored developers, but then they'd lose much of benefits of Open Source development. (Like the ability to require each of 1 million native computer science students to create a useful kernel improvement to graduate...)

Re:A serious curiousity question

[Nihilanth]

here's an interesting scenario. An eastern technology giant lifts restrictions regarding intellectual property concerns, and allows its constituants to build and innovate freely, without the threat of lawsuits or red tape...

It's easy to imagine the intellectual property concerns in the west reaching such a fevered pitch that the worlds intellectual resources actually flee to a situation that dosen't bother as much with the red tape of copyrights and beurauchracy. A "brain-drain", if you will. Perhaps this disregard for intellectual property concerns -does- stem from a basis on stolen technology, but if the end result is a focus more on creative output than on "who gets paid", the people -really- interested in creating will simply go where they can do what they want to do.

Having become accustomed to a certain way of life, those of us insistant upon our rights to download mp3s and try out the latest games before we buy them may find ourselves developing a strong interest in learning chinese.

Re:A serious curiousity question

[cpeterso]

This is how the BSD licensed projects try to subtly encourage people to share their code changes. People or companies that use BSD code without sharing have a lot more maintenance to do themselves. So instead of using paranoid legal force like the GPL, the BSD projects politely encourage code sharing.

Re:A serious curiousity question

[Baki]

Even if they don't feel bound to the license, they still might desire code release- either to take some worldwide market-share from Microsoft (and hurt a leading symbol of US capitalism),

Ironically, MSFT's condemnation of the GPL as being 'communist' might have gotten the Chinese thinking about it. For them, this condemnation must have sounded as a recommendation.

If China proves it can do without Wintel, it will be a huge example for other parts of the world. In a way, MSFT's 'condemnation' of the GPL might have been the beginning of their end.

Re:A serious curiousity question

[Alex Belits]

USSR didn't spend anything on SDI-related stuff -- it was not considered to be a threat in late 80's when everyone with a brain and outside Raytheon or Lockheed understood that this technology would be ineffective in the case of nuclear war. Russian military-related research and engineering was a self-contained program that did not depend on any imported components, so it would be impossible to "overspend" on it -- it didn't require any "hard" currency at all, and didn't involve an overhead of feeding military-industrial complex's companies and their stockholders. With a country as large as former USSR, physical limitations would prevent government to allocate too large percentage of resources on the military, at the expense of the rest of the economy, so economy (that was also mostly self-contained) had sufficient resources to continue operating as it did in raely 80's. The system however was very fragile, and when Gorbachev's reforms went beyond political doctrines and policies into economy, they broken the existing system withour creating anything usable in its place. USSR continued to exist after that, however the central government became so wrapped in internal bickering and mutual accusations between factions, it simply become irrelevant. At that point local governments (usually more conservative politically and more corrupt) taken over, leaving central government nothing to do but continuing discrediting itself until it became completely irrelevant. USSR dissolution therefore was a purely political process, with only remote relationship to the economy (central government's incompetence in the economy-related reforms was one of the reasons for bickering).

So actually "free trade" inside the country was one of the problems that happened before USSR was dissolved. Ex-Communist politicians adopted libertarian-like doctrine that was heavily pushed by US propaganda (even though it has little to do with how US economy operates), and the combination of massive deregulation, formerly state-owned monopolies, and money in the hand of organized crime and corrupt bureaucracy was the deadly mix for the economy.

Re:Important question: who will fab these chips?

[AtomicBomb]

China actually just enters the big fab building exercise in the last year or so. A few 1
2 8-inch/0.18um production lines will be completed in the near future. It may be part of the reason why they want to fast track their first MCU design.

AFAIK, Russia still lacks behind in consumer electronics. Hong Kong... All my friends in HK motorola, which is the only major HK semiconductor, got sacked. They (the semi dept) just do chip testing in recent years while most of the chips are from a Motorola fab in mainland China.

Re:not a big deal

[Doppler00]

Asian countries have no originality? I didn't say that, in fact a lot of amazing advances in computer technologies originated from Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, etc. We wouldn't have nearly as many computers with the technology at the prices we have now if it wasn't for companies in these countries.

It's just that this Dragon CPU doesn't sound like it is being designed as something competative to be placed on the global market but to be only internally used in China. I would be interested in seeing a datasheet on it when it's available (any links to that?).

GPL without copyright

[dachshund]

So Microsoft can now use GPL'ed software without adhering to the GPL because IP doesn't exist? You did know that the only thing protecting the GPL is copyright, right? Or were you fooled, like so many other slashbots that copyleft was actually a legal principle completely opposite to copyright? GPL requires copyright to exist otherwise it is a meaningless contract over, as you put it, a non-existent "thing", that cannot be enforced.

From the perspective of free software, losing copyright isn't such a disaster. You couldn't compel people to cough up modified source code anymore (causing the GPL to behave more like BSD), but you'd simultaneously gain the right to freely distribute and/or plagiarize anything you wanted-- including proprietary source code that some disgruntled employee posted to usenet.

One of the fundamental reasons to use the GPL vs. straight public domain is to prevent someone from just making a few changes to your free code, then using copyright law to prevent you from using the new work. This is why the GPL was first invented. In a society without copyright, that's not such a concern.

I'm not saying that a world without copyright would be a perfect place, but I certainly don't think it would be a disaster for projects that currently use the GPL. They'd probably be better for it. While Microsoft might be able to plagiarize a little bit of free code, their business model would basically collapse. Linux, on the other hand, would get along at least as well as BSD does now.

my concerns

[Artifex]

I'm not worried about any IP rights violations in the beginning, because Intel, AMD, Motorola, TI, or whoever is making similar chips could get Chinese imports blocked from our economy until they get that matter resolved.

Nor am I worried that the Chinese will develop a private version of Linux and not release it under GPL, because as many other posters have pointed out, a private tree would be hard for them to maintain, and would reduce their general compatibility.

What worries me about this is that China isn't exactly known for its pioneering efforts on behalf of minimizing the impact of the technology industry on the environment. I am worried that, in their efforts to introduce this into a world marketplace, they won't follow the minimum environmental requirements that the rest of the industry deals with. I think we should be prepared to ask any company that announces they're looking at using this chip whether they've ensured that those standards will be met, and that we are prepared to hold them accountable for the actions of their suppliers.

I'm all for more chips in the marketplace. I might even buy these if I get in the market and there is an English-language Linux distro (or, better yet, maybe OSX? Wouldn't that be Steve Jobs' best coup, porting that BSD-based OS to it? (Can I say coup when talking about Communist China without being shot?)). But the environmental standards must be followed.

Wrong--it makes spying easier

[MtViewGuy]

I don't think you realize what the Chinese are trying to do.

By developing their own CPU and operating system through official government sanction, it gives the government a way to effectively spy on Internet users because the government knows how everything works and will very likely use this knowledge to attempt such control. You are forgetting that mainland China is still in many ways an authoritarian state and the government is more than willing to spy on its own people to stamp out enemies of the state such as the Fulan Gong movement.

Does the book 1984 have any meaning to you? Mainland China is headed in that direction if government control of hardware and software technology has its way.