From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Mar 25 22:41:29 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from homer.softweyr.com (bsdconspiracy.net [208.187.122.220]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AB8C37B719; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 22:41:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=softweyr.com ident=c558ebf01bc145e8139b116b9dd01c25) by homer.softweyr.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14hQgu-00015O-00; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 23:41:25 -0700 Message-ID: <3ABEE494.F592BA0A@softweyr.com> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 23:41:24 -0700 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Smith Cc: scanner@jurai.net, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. References: <200103222037.f2MKbrs01583@mass.dis.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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