Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 18:02:22 -0800 From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: if_fxp - the real point Message-ID: <200103100202.f2A22Nq00619@mass.dis.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Mar 2001 20:56:57 EST." <5.0.0.25.0.20010309204335.01fc2b00@mail.etinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>
> I think its been mentioned several times in this and other threads that
> intel has a driver for LINUX that is effective documentation on the board,
> and the code is public (although you may have to stick an intel copyright
> in the code also).
It hasn't been mentioned in this thread that the Intel driver is adequate
documentation, because it isn't. (I've read it.)
> Sometimes NDAs arent really what they are. There is certainly no damage to
> intel since they've released their own driver for linux for the board...it
> would be pretty difficult for them to go after someone for disclosing
> something that they've already disclosed themselves.
Part of the problem is that Intel *haven't* disclosed a lot of the
information that's necessary in order to write a driver other than the
one they've written. Much of the information that a driver author
requires is not clearly disclosed in source for another OS' driver, and
again, this is the case with the Intel driver.
Just in case it's not clear, I have on a number of occasions been forced
to reverse-engineer drivers from source, so I can claim to speak on this
topic with some authority. 8)
> You guys continue not to understand why companies dont disclose board info
> freely. You end up competing with your own customers. They dont want people
> buying gray market parts and selling $9. boards. Its very easy to clone a
> board with 2 chips on it these days.
This actually has almost nothing to do with it; placing the programming
documentation under NDA does almost nothing to preclude a competitor from
either cloning the part or for that matter obtaining the documentation
themselves.
NDA's in this particular space serve a limited set of purposes:
- They constitute engineering damage control; witness Realtek's
unhappiness at Bill's honest commentary on their documented parts.
- They provide a theoretical underwriting for the "intellectual
property" that a company's accounting department likes to think it has.
- They allow a company to control (to some degree) the uses to which its
products are put. This is typically a marketting angle (by forcing a
customer to negotiate, you can force a variety of concessions,
co-deals, etc.).
And in our case, they also serve to stifle otherwise legitimate support
for a product, simply because we don't fit into a category they
understand. Irritating, but difficult to deal with.
--
... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his
rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want
to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force
people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt]
V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E
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?200103100202.f2A22Nq00619>