Your attitude seems to be a bit condescending when you say things like “apparently this needs to be explained again”, while at the same time the only one making strong claims in this thread is you, and apparently your “explaining” is not working. So when you are asked specificities over what you mean, you decline to answer, but then you "get angry" because your "people don't get your point"??
I think it is interesting that the Wikipedia article portrays the two (ARM vs RISCV) in such a contrastive manner. One would think that they are from entirely different universes. Yet you seem to think that they are “essentially the same”. This is interesting and you would think that it would open up some new opinions or views or alternative ways to look at the same thing. However, you refuse to comment the Wikipedia article. I don’t understand why you would do this?
I don’t know… you say that ARM is “selling/licensing the hardware-based interpreters” and that “anyone can build his own ARM or x86 CPU without buying a license”. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but even if it is true that anyone can build an ARM processor, you certainly cannot sell ARM processors or products containing the processors without paying both the license and royalties on every chip that you sell.
According to this article “How ARM makes money”.
The upfront license fee depends on the complexity of the design you’re licensing. An older ARM11 will have a lower up front fee than a Cortex A57. The upfront fee generally ranges from $1M - $10M, although there are options lower or higher than that (I’ll get to that shortly).
The royalty is on a per chip basis. Every chip that contains ARM IP has a royalty associated with it. The royalty is typically 1 - 2% of the selling price of the chip.
Now I don't want to get all confrontational about it, but if I am getting this right it does appear that RISCV is very different from ARM.Wikipedia
The RISC-V authors aim to provide several CPU designs freely available under a BSD license. Such licenses allow derivative works, such as RISC-V chip designs, to be either open and free
, like RISC-V itself, or closed and proprietary. This is unlike the alternative OpenRISC cores, which under the GPL license, requires derivative works to be open.By contrast, commercial chip vendors such as ARM Holdings and MIPS Technologies charge substantial license fees for the use of their patents.
 They also require non-disclosure agreements
before releasing documents that describe their designs' advantages and instruction set
. Many design advances are completely proprietary, never described even to customers. The secrecy interferes with legitimate public educational use, security auditing, and the development of public, low–cost free and open-source software compilers, and operating systems.
Developing a CPU requires design expertise in several specialties: electronic logic, compilers, and operating systems. It's rare to find this outside of a professional engineering team. The result is that modern, high-quality general-purpose computer instruction sets have not recently been widely available anywhere, or even explained, except in academic settings
. Because of this, many RISC-V contributors see it as a unified community effort. This need for a large base of contributors is part of the reason why RISC-V was engineered to fit so many uses.
The RISC-V authors also have substantial research and user-experience validating their designs in silicon and simulation. The RISC-V ISA is a direct development from a series of academic computer-design projects. It was originated in part to aid such projects.