Comment by bri3d

Comment by bri3d a day ago

This is conceptually interesting but seems quite a ways from a real end to end implementation - a bit of a smell of academic grantware that I hope can reach completion.

Fully available source from RTL up (although the license seems proprietary?) is very interesting from an audit standpoint, and 1G line speed performance, although easily achieved by any recent desktop hardware, is quite respectable in worst case scenarios (large routing table and small frames). The architecture makes sense (software managed handshakes configure a hardware packet pipeline). WireGuard really lacks acceleration in most contexts (newer Intel QAT supposedly can accelerate ChaCha20 but trying to figure out how one might actually make it work is truly mind bending), so it’s a pretty interesting place to do a hardware implementation.

qrios 12 hours ago

> (although the license seems proprietary?)

Hm, "BSD 3-Clause License" is seems really proprietary to you?

But you are right: do the personal license in many(most?) Verilog files[1] overrules the LICENSE file[2] of a repo?

[1] https://github.com/chili-chips-ba/wireguard-fpga/blob/main/1...

[2] https://github.com/chili-chips-ba/wireguard-fpga/blob/main/L...

Reply View 1 reply

mort96 8 hours ago

The safe assumption to make when met with a contradiction in licensing would be to assume that the more restrictive license holds, no? Especially when the permissive license is a general repo-wide license and the restrictive license is specifically applied to certain files.
So for all intents and purposes, in my opinion, large parts of this Wireguard FPGA project are under this weird proprietary Chili Chips license. In fact, the license is so proprietary that the people who made this wireguard FPGA repository and made it visible to the public are seemingly in violation of it.
It puts us in a weird spot as well: I'm now the "holder of" a file and am obligated to keep all information within it confidential and to protect the file from disclosure. So I guess I can't share a link to the repo, since that would violate my obligation to protect the files within it from disclosure.
I would link to the files in question, but, well, that wouldn't protect them from disclosure now would it.

Reply View | 0 replies