On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 01:29:08AM -0500, Ben Scott wrote:
> On 1/9/06, Michael ODonnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In general, I am still baffled by companies who withold
> > Linux drivers for their HW, my current employer included.
> > However, this article:
> >
> >   http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20060108163615614
> >
> > ...provides at least a glimpse into that mindset.
> 
> Some other reasons I've heard given:
> 
> - For wireless drivers, making hardware specs fully open might allow
> users to "hack" the chips into doing radio things prohibited in a
> given jurisdiction (such as the FCC).
> - For video chips, the drivers and the hardware are so closely
> inter-meshed that FOSS'ing all the details of the driver might expose
> "trade secret" type stuff.
> - In general, today's patent climate being what it is, there is so
> much cross-licensing going on that even trying to figure out who owns
> what to ask them to allow it to be FOSS'ed is difficult, let alone
> getting them to say "Yes".

Time to play "When I was my age..." and give an actual example.

A company I previously worked for had two models of a card that were
exactly identical except for the exterior markings and the contents of a
PROM that was on the card.  If a bit in the PROM was on, then the
software driver would add in a bunch of functionality, but the card cost
twice as much as the card that was otherwise exactly identical.  When I
made a push for Linux support of our cards, I was told that if the
driver were open sourced, users could buy the less expensive card, have
the driver ignore the contents of the PROM, and full funcionality.

In case you're wondering why they did this, it was cheaper for them to
have one manufacturing line for the cards and it also allowed them to
make either version of the card on demand.

I've heard since this is rather common in the audio industry - make a
motherboard for a receiver, and just put it in a different chassis
depending on the kinds and quantity of connections you want.

-Mark

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to