From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 16 00:05:33 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 620C8106564A for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:05:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rock_on_the_web@comcen.com.au) Received: from mail.unitedinsong.com.au (202-172-126-254.cpe.qld-1.comcen.com.au [202.172.126.254]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0887A8FC13 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:05:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rock_on_the_web@comcen.com.au) Received: from [192.168.0.199] (unknown [192.168.0.199]) by mail.unitedinsong.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9352E44F8 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:06:13 +1000 (EST) From: Da Rock To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20081215232326.GC61220@kokopelli.hydra> References: <20081212203202.H4803@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20081212150228.520ad7f8@scorpio> <20081212212552.GF37185@kokopelli.hydra> <1229230200.18610.87.camel@laptop2.herveybayaustralia.com.au> <20081215065327.GM5527@kokopelli.hydra> <1229325063.8820.5.camel@laptop1.herveybayaustralia.com.au> <49462e82.0JabFKZe33ZkdtYT%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <20081215204315.GI60187@kokopelli.hydra> <1229375257.1647.60.camel@laptop2.herveybayaustralia.com.au> <20081215232326.GC61220@kokopelli.hydra> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:05:14 +1000 Message-Id: <1229385921.1647.91.camel@laptop2.herveybayaustralia.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Why FreeBSD not popular on hardware vendors X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:05:33 -0000 On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 16:23 -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 07:07:36AM +1000, Da Rock wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 13:43 -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 02:16:34AM -0800, perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote: > > > > > > Unfortunately, anything covered by a patent, as I hinted > > > > > > above, is verboten. > > > > > > > > Er, doesn't it depend on what is patented? If the h/w itself is > > > > patented, but its software-visible interface is not, there should be > > > > no problem writing a driver for that h/w. OTOH if the algorithms > > > > used in the driver are patented it would be an infringement to > > > > reproduce them. > > > > > > I said anything covered by patent. If the software is not covered by > > > patent, you're fine to write software. Be aware, though, that a lot of > > > patents are intentionally written in a somewhat vague way so they can be > > > extended via case law at a later date. > > > > > > Nothing is "legal" under the current US system unless you can defend it > > > in civil court. That's my general rule of thumb. > > > > That doesn't sound like a good system (US not yours) - how on earth did > > it get so screwed up? (Thats rhetorical btw, I don't mean to start a > > whole discussion on that topic on this list.) > > It's much the same everywhere, from what I've seen. The problems just > arise in different guises. Usually, judging by my observations, they > arise in large part because of the common notion that a problem can be > fixed with more of the behavior that created the problem in the first > place. > > . . . but beyond that, I'd probably start a flame war, so I don't think I > want to get more specific on the list. > Probably not- the flames would probably be directed at a common enemy rather than amongst ourselves here.