Posted Oct 3, 2007 11:40 UTC (Wed) by Zoborov (guest, #29327)
[Link]
If the "Confidential Information" may be disclosed only to the extent that it effects the "Purposes", and if the exemplary instance of these "Purposes" is a functional driver, then no, since there's no technical need on the developer's part to provide explicit device documentation. After all, perfectly functional device drivers can have hopelessly obfuscated source code.
I'm not a Veterinarian
Posted Oct 4, 2007 2:05 UTC (Thu) by filker0 (guest, #31278)
[Link]
But I do believe that my wife (who is) would concur - This horse is dead. Please don't make us call
the SPCDA (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Dead Animals).
The Linux Driver Project will go on whether you're happy about it or not. If I had the time, I'd
volunteer to write a driver or two.
I'm not a Veterinarian
Posted Oct 5, 2007 15:15 UTC (Fri) by Zoborov (guest, #29327)
[Link]
The Linux Driver Project will go on whether you're happy about it or not.