| |||||||||||||
On binary drivers and stable interfacesOn binary drivers and stable interfacesPosted Nov 11, 2005 1:57 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)In reply to: On binary drivers and stable interfaces by Quazatron Parent article: On binary drivers and stable interfaces
If the vendors want to protect their "valuable intellectual property", all they have to do is to publish the specifications of the product, how to interface with it. The OSS community can then write the GPL driver. So you're assuming the valuable intellectual property is the driver software (copyright)? It's not. The company doesn't sell drivers. The valuable intellectual property is the trade secrets about how the device works. Publishing specs would be worse than shipping source code in that respect.
(Log in to post comments)
On binary drivers and stable interfaces Posted Nov 12, 2005 19:38 UTC (Sat) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Revealing the programming interface for their device is not the same as publicly documenting how their device works. The more compliated the device the less similar that information is.
The only plausible excuse I've heard is that it allows other companies to make work-alikes without having to write their own drivers or have them certified by Microsoft.
On binary drivers and stable interfaces Posted Nov 12, 2005 20:26 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Good point. I was vague when I said the trade secret in question is "how the device works." The trade secret is the programming interface, and your explanation is the best I've heard for why the company perceives that secret as valuable.
|
|||||||||||||