Device drivers and non-disclosure agreements
Posted Oct 9, 2006 23:35 UTC (Mon) by drag
In reply to: Device drivers and non-disclosure agreements
Parent article: Device drivers and non-disclosure agreements
Why not sign a NDA with Marvell in order to develop the documentation needed for software development?!
I've seen this with the reverse engineered documentation for the Broadcom BCM43xx devices. Of course that was all reverse engineered from Linux binary-only drivers, but I think the end result would be the same.
The results of the drivers being developed based on that are actually very nice. The results are superior to say that of the Ralink drivers who work to improve on code released by ralink. (they can't work on SMP machines, it's not 64bit safe, it's not usefull for non-x86 platforms, etc etc. (The rt2x00 is working on the devicescape branch and drivers fro those devices which will be superior.. but nothing realy usefull has materialized yet)).
So if there is no documentation then get the NDA to develop documentation!! I am sure that since it's OS agnostic you should be able to get developers from OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and maybe even Apple to praticipate.
That way I figure then it's a win-win. Your doing the NDA to get more knowledge out there and make the hardware usefull for a wider audiance.
Of course then this doesn't help for hardware support for people who wish to keep everything secret... But that suites me. If a manufacturer wasn't to obscure how to use their own hardware then I don't want it, as long as a alternative is aviable.
(and not even speaking about internal hardware.. just the software interfaces)
The way I figure:
Open hardware specs + open code > Open hardware specs > Open code > closed code > no support.
to post comments)