-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Terry Hancock wrote:
quoted text
> Hamish wrote:
>> On Tuesday 16 May 2006 03:15, Terry Hancock wrote:
>>> So ... 'free hardware' is a selling point. But I also
>>> acknowledge that a company needs to protect it's proprietary
>>> edge if it is investing in card or chip production. There are a
>>> number of well-defined strategies for implementing that balance
>>> though: license-delay schemes, proprietary enhancements (but
>>> with a solid free-licensed reference design), etc.
>>
>> At the risk of being shouted down, I say BULL.
>
> Hmm. To which bit?
>

The proprietary bit... mentioning proprietary means to me there's a
hidden undocumented interface to talk to the sucker & the un-blessed
can't be trusted to know how to talk to it. e.g. ATI's r3xx chips.

quoted text
> The point I was making here is that *open hardware*
> (well-documented interfaces) is a requirement, but *free hardware*
> (completely documented implementation) is not.   OTOH, free
> hardware *is* a selling point -- given
>

[deleted]
quoted text
>> All they need to do is build a chip with an open & documented
>> interface. Who cares HOW it does it, as long as it does what it
>> says on the tin...
>
> Ah. Then you actually agree with what I said.
>
> I would classify that as "open", not "free".  "Free" hardware means
>  I could (assuming I had a chip fab, surface mount oven, and skills
>  I don't have ;-) ) build the product myself from the available
> documentation.
>
> "Open" means I've got all the information needed to use the device
> (to write a driver, say).
>

Yeah. I see now we're on the same wavelength. As far as what we expect
from chip manufacturers that is :)

quoted text
>> (Sorry. Shouldn't post when I've been drinking I know).
>
> Heh. Probably not ... always gets people into trouble. ;-)
>
>> But this thread is gettign annoying. If you don't like the OGD,
>> build your own competing product & sell that.
>
> Well, I can't speak for anybody else, but I'm personally talking
> about the OGD project. I'm saying that if Traversal Tech needs to
> delay implementation design publication, I can live with that (but
> to be honest, I was until quite recently confused about the status
> of the project and had "Traversal" and "Tech Source" confused).
>

Only for the ASIC IIUC. But that's fine as long as the ASIC just
implements an open interface, & does it correctly, who really cares
exactly how it does it... (Although I do believe like DRM it's only
the end user it affects. If someone wanted to copy it badly enough
they'd slice it open & duplicate it. Like the pirates apparently used
to do with arcade machines in the 80's & 90's.

Having said that if Traversal made an ASIC that implemented the OGD
register level interface & kept the internals secret forever, then as
long as they hadn't broken copyright by using someone elses code
internal to it, who's to complain? Mind you at that level it's no
different from Via or Intel chipsets is it? The openness is the
differentiation between them & if it's LGPL'ed that has the advantage
that a competitor can't just use the code & build their own & sell
it... They could build it & give it away though AIUI.

quoted text
> OTOH, since OGD has become a 100% community project, it seems
> unlikely that such a trade is necessary, so my point is probably
> moot anyway.
>
> Cheers, Terry
>
Sigh... Depending on price & speed (And company funds of course) I'll
be happy when the OGD1 gets released... Do we have a date yet? I don't
remember seeing a recent timeline. Maybe I just missed it.

H
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEceuo/3QXwQQkZYwRAk4qAKCHdSUUEEqsGgl33vmN7nUSvwHuogCfe2+w
IP05aRGXGupUtEvZikj1lio=
=P5vc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
Open-graphics@duskglow.com
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)