On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 11:08 AM, ron minnich <rminn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 9:38 AM, mrnuke <mr.nuke...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That is a clear attempt to circumvent the > > wishes of the rightsholders to this project. > > > > > That part I believe you are missing here is that this is a balancing > act. The vendors are rightsholders too. They have knowledge we need. > Unfortunately, most of them no longer want to release it -- it's not > 1999. It's all well and good to say "well sod them then" but that's > simply not an option on a large scale. I don't like it, you don't like > it, we don't like it, ... but there it is. > Could the two interested parties negotiate a compromise? In my mind that's Google calling Intel, and they talk it over. That probably just demonstrates how little I understand about who and what is involved. But I ordered an HP Pavilion m6-1035dx. It appears the OEM's neglect of AMD has meant they haven't "added features," which makes our job easy and weakens Intel's negotiating position. Happy to be proven wrong, David
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot