Well, fortunately this has turned out to be a non-issue.
I just went to www.infinibandta.org and the 1.2 spec is available for
download.
http://www.infinibandta.org/specs/register/publicspec/vol1r1_2.zip
http://www.infinibandta.org/specs/register/publicspec/vol2r1_2.zip
Roland Dreier wrote:
Ro
At 11:27 AM 10/11/2004, Ronald G. Minnich wrote:
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Michael
Krause wrote:
> Spec for free or spec for a price - neither grants anyone rights to
any
> IP contained within the specifications or on the technologies
that
> surround the specification. The change in spec cost, while
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Michael Krause wrote:
> Spec for free or spec for a price - neither grants anyone rights to any
> IP contained within the specifications or on the technologies that
> surround the specification. The change in spec cost, while clearly
> unfortunate, has no impact on the IP ri
At 02:11 PM 10/9/2004, you wrote:
Jeff> If
there is questionable code, that is _not_ a justification
Jeff> to add more.
I guess my point was not that the bluetooth stack is somehow
questionable, but rather that the IP policies of a standards bodies
are really not a good reason to keep cod
Alan> The big question seems to be about the standard itself. Are
Alan> the items at issue hardware or software ? We already deal
Alan> with a lot of devices that have hardware related patent
Alan> pools and those by themselves don't seem to cause problems.
As far as I know there a
On Sad, 2004-10-09 at 22:11, Roland Dreier wrote:
> I guess my point was not that the bluetooth stack is somehow
> questionable, but rather that the IP policies of a standards bodies
> are really not a good reason to keep code out of the kernel. If
> someone can name one patent that the IB driver
Jeff> If there is questionable code, that is _not_ a justification
Jeff> to add more.
I guess my point was not that the bluetooth stack is somehow
questionable, but rather that the IP policies of a standards bodies
are really not a good reason to keep code out of the kernel. If
someone ca
Roland> it's orthogonal to any IP issues. Since the Linux kernel
Roland> contains a lot of code written to specs available only
Roland> under NDA (and even reverse-engineered code where specs
Roland> are completely unavailable), I don't think the expense
Roland> should be an is
Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
> it's orthogonal to any IP issues. Since the Linux kernel contains a
> lot of code written to specs available only under NDA (and even
> reverse-engineered code where specs are completely unavailable), I
> don't think the expense should be an issue.
One can sa
Roland Dreier wrote:
Jeff> Read the member agreement :) It -explicitly- does -not-
Jeff> require waiving of patent claims related to any
Jeff> implementation of IB.
Jeff> That's different from ATA, SCSI, USB, the list goes on...
Fair enough, but read the Bluetooth SIG patent agreeme
Greg> The "purchase a spec" agreement has changed, right?
Good point. I think the right way to understand this is that the
purchase agreement and the $9500 cost is intended to discourage anyone
from actually buying the spec -- for the same money you can become a
full IBTA member so why shell
Jeff> Read the member agreement :) It -explicitly- does -not-
Jeff> require waiving of patent claims related to any
Jeff> implementation of IB.
Jeff> That's different from ATA, SCSI, USB, the list goes on...
Fair enough, but read the Bluetooth SIG patent agreement [1]. As far
as
Roland Dreier wrote:
As for IP, as far as I know, there has been no change to any of the
bylaws or other members agreements. If there is some specific
provision that concerns you, please bring it to our attention -- the
IBTA in general and the IBTA steering committee in general have been
very supp
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 04:27:14PM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> The increase in cost for the spec is rather unfortunate but I think
> it's orthogonal to any IP issues. Since the Linux kernel contains a
> lot of code written to specs available only under NDA (and even
> reverse-engineered code whe
Greg> All I know is a number of different people, from different
Greg> companies are suddenly very worried about this. The fact
Greg> that they don't want to comment on it in public leads me to
Greg> believe that there is something behind their fears.
Hmm, I haven't heard anything
The increase in cost for the spec is rather unfortunate but I think
it's orthogonal to any IP issues. Since the Linux kernel contains a
lot of code written to specs available only under NDA (and even
reverse-engineered code where specs are completely unavailable), I
don't think the expense should
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 04:13:07PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > Even the PCI-SIG requires you to pay for the spec.
>
> I know that, almost all groups do. Although $9500 does seem a bit steep
> for spec prices :)
Especially as (wrt PCISIG at least) the mindshare books contain almost
exactly the
On Fri, 2004-10-08 at 19:13, Greg KH wrote:
> All I know is a number of different people, from different companies are
> suddenly very worried about this. The fact that they don't want to
> comment on it in public leads me to believe that there is something
> behind their fears.
Sounds like our f
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 04:49:16PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [2] Sure, any person who has a copy of the kernel source tree could be a
> > target for any of a zillion other potential claims, nothing new there,
> > but the point here is they are expl
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[2] Sure, any person who has a copy of the kernel source tree could be a
target for any of a zillion other potential claims, nothing new there,
but the point here is they are explicitly stating that they will go
after non-IBTA members wh
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [2] Sure, any person who has a copy of the kernel source tree could be a
> target for any of a zillion other potential claims, nothing new there,
> but the point here is they are explicitly stating that they will go
> after non-IBTA members who touch IB code[3
At 01:22 PM 10/8/2004, Greg KH wrote:
Hi all,
Enough people have been asking me about this lately, that I thought
I
would just bring it up publicly here.
It seems that the Infiniband group (IBTA) has changed their
licensing
agrement of the basic Infiniband spec. See:
http://www.theinquir
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Greg KH wrote:
> If someone downloads the spec without joining the IBTA, and
> proceeds to use the spec for an implementation of the IBTA spec,
> that person (company) runs the risk of being a target of patent
> infringement claims by IBTA members.
An
Hi all,
Enough people have been asking me about this lately, that I thought I
would just bring it up publicly here.
It seems that the Infiniband group (IBTA) has changed their licensing
agrement of the basic Infiniband spec. See:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18922
for more info ab
24 matches
Mail list logo
