Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 12:37:53 -0800 From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: scanner@jurai.net Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Message-ID: <200103222037.f2MKbrs01583@mass.dis.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 22 Mar 2001 13:15:24 EST." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103221310380.62375-100000@sasami.jurai.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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.
Regards,
Mike
--
... 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?200103222037.f2MKbrs01583>