""I think you'll find most NDAs forbid you from signing them in order to develop documentation to allow people to circumvent the NDA. The lawyers aren't *that* stupid.""
YES. Now you are starting to see my point.
Theo says that Linux devs are screwing up by falling for NDA traps and it's not helping anybody other then themselves. Linux developers say they are doing it because it allows them to work with engineers because documentation is non-existant. The company can't release something that is non-existant.
I say, then if it is true then they can produce the documentation themselves so that other developers can use it to improve and develop their own drivers. However if the NDA forbids stuff like that.. Then the Linux developers are full of shit and are just saying that so they don't look bad. Corporations like that wouldn't release the documentation anyways even if it existed.
I don't have a problem with them replying something like: "Tough shit Theo. The ONLY way we are going to get good drivers in a reasonable time span is by signing NDAs. Next time make a more popular OS so you too can sign NDAs otherwise shut up and go back to reverse engineering with help from the Linux drivers code and bitching about the lack of quality in said code.".
If that is the truth then that is the truth. What can anybody do about it?
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds