Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:38:48 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Small PCI core patch |
| |
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:33:48AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote: > On Tuesday 22 November 2005 08:30, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:07:12AM +0200, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > > > Historically hackers were not too good at raising funds. > > > > > > Maybe we should use stuff which we are good at? Forcedeth > > > is a nice precedent. 2d and especially 3d engines > > > may be significantly harder to reverse engineer, > > > but people can scale rather nicely, as kernel development shows. ;) > > > > > > Then write specs from gained knowledge and put it on a web page. > > > > Yes, IMO this is the only realistic path, without cooperation from > > ATI/NVIDIA. > > > > This is why I dislike the ATI r300 rev-eng effort: I cannot find any > > "Chinese wall": one team rev-engs the hardware and writes a doc. > > Another team writes the drivers from the docs. > > If they're reverse engineering the hardware, why would you need a chinese > wall? Compaq was turning x86 assembly code into x86 assembly code and had to > prove that the new x86 code didn't infringe the copyright on the old x86 > code. They weren't turning port I/O and DMA logs into C code...
Chinese wall is far more secure legally.
Linux doesn't need more headaches from open legal questions.
It worked for forcedeth, Broadcom wireless, and several other projects... it results in a better driver, too.
Jeff
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |