From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Mar 21 07:47:22 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id HAA23229 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 1995 07:47:22 -0800
Received: from aut.alcatel.at (dnisun.aut.alcatel.at [146.112.129.1]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id HAA23206 for <hackers@freefall.cdrom.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 1995 07:47:17 -0800
Received: from atusc46.aut.alcatel.at ([146.112.129.213]) by aut.alcatel.at (4.1/SMI-4.1/AAA-1.29/main)
	id AA07308; Tue, 21 Mar 95 16:41:14 +0100
From: Marino.Ladavac@aut.alcatel.at (Marino Ladavac)
Message-Id: <9503211541.AA07308@aut.alcatel.at>
Subject: Adaptec sequencer code (was: SVNET Meeting)
To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 16:40:25 +0100 (MET)
Cc: hackers@freefall.cdrom.com
In-Reply-To: <9503210004.AA03603@cs.weber.edu> from "Terry Lambert" at Mar 20, 95 05:04:10 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 686       
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Terry Lambert wrote:
> 
> For the purposes of binary distribution, it ought to be easier to
> either get the sequencer code un-GPL'ed, rewrite it, or someone sign
> a non-disclosure with Adaptec and write a binary driver distributed
> soley as .o files.
> 
> 8-|.
> 

	Since the sequencer code is, as far as I could understand,
	just a bunch of raw binary data, is it not itself basically
	unreadable (bar disassembly) and as such non disclosing?

	I mean, knowing how they did program the sequencer is nice,
	but do we really care that much, as long as it works?

	I don't know about Adaptec's opinion on distributing only the
	object format of the sequencer.  Is that kosher?

/Alby