Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 23:41:24 -0700 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> Cc: scanner@jurai.net, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Message-ID: <3ABEE494.F592BA0A@softweyr.com> References: <200103222037.f2MKbrs01583@mass.dis.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Smith wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> >
> > > Let me just pipe in a bit. Compromise seems just like the kind of thing
> > > marketing or legal would want to do. The problem is that _we_ cannot
> > > compromise because one cannot write a "half-way there" driver. It's a
> > > technical impossibility.
> >
> > I agree 100%. I don't think this will fly either. I am just making the
> > effort to work with Intel to get what we need. It's not going to happen
> > overnight. Period. They are not going to change their NDA policy. In the
> > future maybe. Actually I will forward the email she sent me this last time
> > after I got off the phone with her an hour ago. I mentioned the problems
> > Jonathan had with the GigE card. That's why she refers to him. Anyway I
> > will forward it in a sec to the list.
>
> [Speaking here from some experience with this set of issues.]
>
> The compromise that you want to strike, and really the *only* compromise
> that is going to work, is that the *documents* will remain undisclosed,
> but information from the documents that is necessary to produce a
> functional, high-performance driver may be disclosed, but *only* through
> the source code of the driver.
>
> Thus one or a small group of people sign the NDA, and keep the
> documentation. The driver is then developed and maintained by this team,
> who also have the opportunity to interact with Intel's engineering
> people. The source code resulting from this effort is then released
> publically. Intel should probably retain the right to veto code that you
> might want to put in the driver if they feel that it risks disclosure
> they don't want, but you don't have to suggest this to them unless you
> feel you need it as a bargaining chip.
>
> This would put them in the same situation as they are already in with
> their source-available Linux driver; it should not present any more
> intellectual property risks than they already face, and as a bonus, it
> gets us a better-supported driver.
In case anyone is truly interested in doing this, I have a "limited
liability company" setup to do exactly this sort of work. If someone
is interested in approaching Intel about this, under "contract" to my
LLC, let me know via private e-mail.
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3ABEE494.F592BA0A>