Reverse engineering takes longer than a product cycle
Posted Oct 10, 2006 0:58 UTC (Tue) by drag
In reply to: Reverse engineering takes longer than a product cycle
Parent article: Device drivers and non-disclosure agreements
That's not quite what I ment.
I ment that if you have to sign a NDA because of non-existant documentation then sign it so that you develop documentation for other people to use with the hardware.
The BCM43xx documentation was just a example of what is possible for this sort of thing.. Athough that was from reverse engineering Linux drivers and not done under NDA.
In other words.. If it's true that the OLPC have to sign the NDA to work with the Marvell engineers because there is no documentation and they have to get help from the engineers then they should be making the nessicary documentation for other people, like the OpenBSD developers, to use.
If they can't do that then the lack of documentation is just a BS excuse and Marvell has no intention on having their hardware open. (and again, not completely open. Just documentation on what is needed to program software to run on them)
I wasn't saying that people should avoid NDAs completely and work on reverse engineering stuff.
Oh, and the bcm43xx drivers are working fine for me. They were included in the 2.6.17 kernel branch by default although you have to get the firmware seperately. The ralink drivers don't work because I am using a non-x86 machine, although I still very much suggest buying Ralink products instead of the Broadcom stuff. When the devicescape stack gets finalised then those drivers are going to be very very good and full featured. There is just some bugs standing in their way..
to post comments)