On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 10:50:13AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Justin Pryzby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050225 22:35]: > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 04:23:07PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > I'll see about taking a closer look at parts to see if it actually > > > makes sense, but so far it looks fine to me. As it is, I don't see > > > any difference between this and any other vendor not releasing > > > hardware specs and yet a Free driver exists. Not a good thing, but > > > not non-free either. > > > Well put. I think it is arguably not "source code", however, if the > > source we are seeing is the result of some sed-like script which > > converts a sort of custom #defined MAGIC_NUMBERs to id numbers, and > > then removes the #definitions. > > Is there some proof that the files are created that way, or is this just > your assumptation? Not even an assumption, it was just a hypothetical wandering of my mind (as Don Armstrong said). I was still arguing with myself whether closed-specification was conflicting with open source software. My conclusion: it may be. I was thinking "if I were to sit down right now and right a opened driver while actively withholding device details, how would I do it", and the conclusion was that I would have to actively obfuscate the code (make it less easy to modify), and would be possible with a bit of cpp or sed magic. Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]