Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:56:02 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: W Gerald Hicks <wghicks@bellsouth.net> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG, wghicks@wghicks.bellsouth.net Subject: Re: IA64: Back on topic Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.19990716114240.04750360@localhost> In-Reply-To: <199907161743.NAA00670@bellsouth.net> References: <Your message of "Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:54:37 MDT." <4.2.0.58.19990716104953.045e4aa0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 01:43 PM 7/16/99 -0400, W Gerald Hicks wrote: >>Sorry, but companies -- especially hardware companies -- will always > >want to keep competitors from knowing their plans. There's nothing > >immoral about that. They're not under any obligation to tell you anything > >they don't want to. (If they were, it'd be just as bad as the forced > >disclosure required by the GPL.) One of the reasons I advocate the > >BSD approach is that it allows people to choose whether or not to > >give away their work. > >And if those terms are not acceptable then people are not forced to >use the products either. > >It's ok to spare the lecture in market dynamics too, we've both >been at this for a long time, right? > >The real truth is, no one really understands the dynamics of these >markets yet, they are too young. Not so. Companies have placed advance information about microprocessor architectures under NDA for decades. Intel has gone to both extremes. It released information on the iAPX432 years before the product's introduction, and withheld "Appendix H" of the Pentium docs for a couple of years after the CPU shipped (and suffered for it). They should now have enough data to make intelligent choices. > Certainly now is not the time >to give up ground toward proprietary encroachment. Withholding data before a product's release is not "proprietary encroachment." It's not encroaching upon anyone else's rights. What's more, it is a legitimate defensive move. As you may or may not be aware, a court has now ordered that Intel reveal advance information to all vendors on equal terms. Thus, Intel must also be fair. They can't demand an NDA from someone else and give you advance information without an NDA. >It's very important to me, as one of FreeBSD's customers, that >the project remain aligned with its principle of openness. The code generated by the FreeBSD project will surely be open, and would not be covered by an NDA by the time the CPU shipped. There is nothing wrong with starting early under NDA. >I haven't reviewed the terms of the NDA and don't intend to. Then how can you judge it? >The >Merced will become practical for my concerns when there is significant >market acceptance and mindshare committed to it. At which point, the code is sure to be publicly available. In short, there's no problem with regard to openness. What you're advocating, however, is cutting off your nose to spite your face. He who makes unreasonable demands deserves to lose. Just as Mr. Hubbard demands that FreeBSD not have effective advocacy (ignoring the well-known principles of competition among replicators), you demand that others give up their intellectual property and market advantage just because you say so. Intel doesn't care about such unreasonable demands. Nor does it have to care. Nor SHOULD it care. If you're unable to play well with others, the loss is yours, and FreeBSD's. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.2.0.58.19990716114240.04750360>