> I'm guessing that you did not read the followup FAQ about the program
It ia a fucking farce.
You are trying to make sure that maintainers of code -- ie. any
random joe who wants to improve the code in the future -- has LESS
ACCESS to docs later on because someone signed an NDA to write it
in the first place.
You are making a very big mistake.
I have been fighting against this for nearly a decade.
I don't know what you signed an NDA for in the past, but I can ASSURE
YOU THAT OTHER PEOPLE WITHOUT THE DOCS CANNOT FIX THE BUGS IN THOSE
DRIVERS SO THEY SUCK MORE THAN DRIVERS WRITTEN WITH FULLY OPEN DOCS.
PERIOD.
You cannot FAQ that problem out of existance.
It is people like you who are closed.
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Steven Rostedt | Re: Major regression on hackbench with SLUB |
| Nick Piggin | 2.6.24-rc2 slab vs slob tbench numbers |
| Paul Jackson | Re: cpuset-remove-sched-domain-hooks-from-cpusets |
git: | |
| David Miller | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Frans Pop | svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97). |
