Before considering licenses for hardware, you should also be aware of the potential problems with license inclusion terms -- an issue that escaped my memory until just now, and I hunted down a relevant article on the subject:
This is relevant to more than just BSD licenses. Ideally, one should use software-nonspecific licenses, and those that do not require inclusion of license terms with hardware (or "binary" or any other terms that might be interpreted as covering hardware in a court of law). Licenses like the Detachable Public License (which is also not written in a software-specific manner) are better-suited to hardware distributions than most software licenses.
I'm having a difficult time imagining how one would include NOTICE and license files with a CPU (for instance). Perhaps microdot printing on a label, though the "readable form" requirement in AL2 seems violated by that approach.
Keep all that in mind when managing license compliance in the future.
You've lost at least one. I know some other people who will probably come to the same conclusion. Luckily, there are other RISC-V competitors out there who use better licensing.