We've done that like many others ("study the license carefully"), but you don't trust our results. That's your problem. The entire LATTICE.LICENSE applies to those files, not just section 11. Get your mind off of section 11, start reading at 1. Then 2. Then 3. and so on. If you don't want to do that, fine. Still your problem. Until you found out about Mico32 for the first time (today), the entire world knows since 2006 that Lattice has open-sourced the Mico32 core. Unfortunately they didn't pick a standard license (BSD/X11), but had to write their own. One reason for that is that they specifically wanted to include manufacturing rights in the 'open' part, otherwise people like you would come and say "they didn't specifically allow manufacturing, so it's no good for manufacturing". Moreover, they opened the Mico32 core because they know (like people from the Milkymist project know as well), that the main value comes from peripherals and SoC integration, not the core. There are a number of peripherals Lattice did not open source. The Milkymist project took the open Mico32 core, and added their own, Milkymist developed, open peripherals to it. If it were indeed true that the Milkymist project, together with the rest of the world, misunderstood the Lattice open source license since 2006, the Milkymist SoC would remove the (then) proprietary Mico32 core and switch to another core or write their own core. The Mico32 core files you pointed to (with the confusing proprietary/confidential header) make up a little less than 25% of the entire Milkymist SoC. We are very interested in those files being unquestionably open source, we fully respect copyrights and intellectual property, as any proper free software project would.
