Perhaps it will lead to a processor startup, but follow that to its logical conclusion: it takes a huge, profitable company to sustain processor delivery for years. There's a very good reason why only a handful of companies make the top 6 CPU architectures. There's still Synopsys ARC, Renesas, Atmel, PIC just to name a few of RISC-V competitors.
In reality, the Berkeley Four just made a handful of semi companies richer. WDC, NXP, NVIDIA, Microchip, etc. don't have to pay Arm for IP if they use RISC-V. Did that really help anything? Meh.
While I agree there is something not right about cutting into ARM’s profits for the benefit of megacorporations, I think that a royalty-free ISA might genuinely be good for civilization despite that in the same way Linux is. It’s tough though, I’m still not fully sold on that opinion.
I think the key difference with an OS like Linux and an ISA like RISC-V is that Linux helped literally millions of smart, curious kids get exposed to Unix and tinkering in a OS that wasn't a locked down behemoth: Windows. It changed lives. I don't think it is an exaggeration to overstate the democrization Linux had.
However, I don't see RISC-V touching the world in an analogous way. No kid is gonna tinker with an ISA and fab a CPU. Maybe they will stick it on an FPGA? But it seems less accessible.
Plus RISC-V's biggest propopent, Patterson, isn't really giving the world anything like Linus Torvald did. Linus busted his butt (and still does!) whereas Patterson flies around getting big speaker fees to pump up RISC-V while delegating. Just seems a bit... off? Or its just me.
However, I taught programming in an afterschool program in the mid-80's and the Apple //e had an amazing graphical program that stepped through an assembly program, showing the data moving through the busses from register to memory, etc. And it was instrumental to kids learning. There's a few more wires in a 32-bit RISC compared to an 8-bit 6502, but someone will benefit!
No, they won't. By definition, FPGAs always give you less performance per dollar than custom silicon. If they can't afford an expensive computer, then FPGAs and the tooling to use them is even more out of reach by a long way.
The resulting RISC-V cores are mostly emulated, but are expanding knowledge of FPGAs immensely as a side effect.
It really is a just question of any level of hobbyist-accessibility (think photo-etching 2 PCBs of less sophistication vs. making a run of 100 perfect 3-layered PCBs in a factory) - and I've seen quite a lot of projects popping up around FPGAs lately that seem to indicate they're starting to approach the Arduino-ish level of approachability (though it's still obviously very far).
RISC-V just might be one of the things on the way to a whole "sillicon-tinkering" scene, so I'm pretty hopeful.
A generation ago, their forerunners - Acorn - were happy to take, use and make a profit from the work of American universities, yet when Berkeley asked to be able to use Arm's ISA for research purposes, they got short shrift.
So Berkeley cobbling together a next-generation RISC ISA, and Foundation-ing it out of reach of the same thing happening again, is smart retribution.
There're already designs freely available to use though, either as they are, or to build upon.
And there are also now many other companies designing using the ISA; decentralising the production of chips.
But - over and above the revolutionary economics of it - it's being recognised as a good ISA, and RISC-V cores are already being incorporated into consumer electronics.
