Furthermore, the resources that you would need to spend constantly cracking newer versions just isn't worth it when similar capital could be spent building home grown alternatives.
Finally, cracking and building a clone does cause liability risks for Chinese companies attempting to expand abroad. Companies are companies first - even in China - and the appetite for Huawei getting completely blocked from all of the EU, Singapore, SK, JP, India, etc where both the large EDA vendors and Chinese vendors coexist makes it a proposition that isn't worth it.
Zero of these programs have any level of copy protection remotely resembling Denuvo: no virtualization, debug symbols are commonly left intact.
And the name of the game that's happening now is offering EDAs only via SaaS - the removing a major vector for piracy.
This isn't true in my experience. Cadence, Synopsys, and Siemens tools all use local license files or license servers (mainly FlexLM). Updates are just downloaded from their website.
I call that EDA for brevity
> Can you do that with KiCAD?
Yes, depending how you define "high performance computing" (my question here)
Cadence tooling is for end-to-end electronics design - from transistor/standard cell up to PCB.
So technically they’re both EDA tools, but one is in another league as far as sophistication goes.
There's a whole lot more to an EDA tool than just layout or running spice though.
The parent's question still seems applicable. Is this basically down to a judge to decide the line at which a certain technology is too advanced to export? Would open sourcing an EDA tool be illegal if it was sufficiently capable?
(I'm not a member of any guilds)
I think for this case though it was specifically because Cadence sold a commercial product to a banned entity, instead of anything technology related.
Interesting. Sounds like Cadence China employees went rogue. Nonetheless, Cadence USA is on the hook.
bobmcnamara•2h ago
$100B Cadence: it wasn't very effective
Simulacra•2h ago
martin-t•1h ago
DanielVZ•16m ago