public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alon Bar-Lev <alon.barlev@gmail.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: Daniel Bonekeeper <thehazard@gmail.com>,
	kernelnewbies@nl.linux.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Driver for Microsoft USB Fingerprint Reader
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 20:09:49 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <44A94F5D.4050206@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200607031500.k63F0rO2014091@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>

Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 14:44:10 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev said:
> 
>> I hate when vendors like ATI, Conexant and UPEK publish binary drivers
>> without publishing the chipset spec... They should decide whether
>> their IP is on the software part or on the hardware part, if it is on
>> the hardware part, they are making money in selling the hardware. If
>> it is on the software part, there is no reason why not providing the
>> information for others to write software to work with the primitive
>> hardware. So in either case there should be full hardware interface
>> disclosure.
> 
> That's all fine and good, if the hardware design is entirely either
> stuff designed to open specs (for instance, the actual PCI interface
> chips, which *have* to behave a given way for the PCI bus to work) or
> your own design.
> 
> Things get much more difficult if your hardware design ends up incorporating
> somebody else's intellectual property, and they insist on such obfuscation
> as part of the licensing terms.  You then have two choices:
> 
> 1) Refuse to build and sell the board under such onerous requirements.
> 
> 2) Realize that 95% of the computers that could possibly use your board
> are running Windows and don't care about an open-source driver *anyhow*,
> accept the fact that you'll not be able to sell to that last 5%, and
> build it anyhow...
> 
> Only one of these choices generates revenue for your company.

This is not the situation in ATI, Conexant and UPK. They all 
manufacture chips, and they claim that the interface of the 
chip is their IP. I cannot accept this.

Let's take the Conexant case, I bought a computer (Thinkpad) 
with their modem. This means that I've paid for the hardware 
part.

Now this chip should be very primitive, it only allow the 
basic hardware support for software to produce the necessary 
waves.

They supply drivers for Windows for free, but they have sold 
the chip interface to 3rd party that sells!!! drivers for Linux.

They admit that they need no more money for the sale, but 
they don't publish the chip interface to allow others to 
develop appropriate software.

The secret should be on the software... But still they 
continue to limit the usage of the chip people payed money for.

And until now I did not discuss the low quality level of the 
linux binary drivers!

The same goes for ATI and others.

Best Regards,
Alon Bar-Lev.


  reply	other threads:[~2006-07-03 17:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-07-03  6:51 Driver for Microsoft USB Fingerprint Reader Daniel Bonekeeper
2006-07-03  8:52 ` Daniel Drake
2006-07-03 10:04 ` Alon Bar-Lev
2006-07-03 17:37   ` [OT] " Alistair John Strachan
2006-07-03 20:16     ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-07-03 18:04   ` Daniel Bonekeeper
2006-07-03 18:16     ` Alon Bar-Lev
2006-07-03 20:53       ` Daniel Bonekeeper
2006-07-03 21:45         ` Greg KH
2006-07-03 22:11           ` Daniel Bonekeeper
2006-07-03 22:26             ` Greg KH
2006-07-03 23:24               ` Daniel Bonekeeper
2006-07-03 23:29                 ` Greg KH
2006-07-04  0:04                   ` Daniel Bonekeeper
2006-07-04  0:13                     ` Greg KH
2006-07-05 17:58                     ` Daniel Drake
2006-07-05 18:09                       ` Daniel Bonekeeper
2006-07-05 18:55                         ` Daniel Drake
2006-07-05 19:46                           ` Daniel Bonekeeper
2006-07-05 23:23                             ` Daniel Drake
2006-07-06  2:05                               ` Daniel Bonekeeper
2006-07-06 10:35                                 ` Daniel Drake
2006-07-04  3:56               ` Daniel Bonekeeper
2006-07-04  3:58                 ` Greg KH
2006-07-03 22:35             ` Alan Cox
2006-07-03 22:49               ` Daniel Bonekeeper
2006-07-04  8:39                 ` Alan Cox
2006-07-05  4:01               ` Bill Davidsen
2006-07-05 15:55                 ` Daniel Bonekeeper
2006-07-03 11:44 ` Alon Bar-Lev
2006-07-03 15:00   ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2006-07-03 17:09     ` Alon Bar-Lev [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-07-05 16:32 Daniel Bonekeeper
2006-07-06  4:48 linux
2006-07-06 12:26 ` Daniel Drake
2006-07-06 17:38 ` Alan Cox
2006-07-06 17:49   ` Joel Jaeggli
     [not found] <6vtYr-w2-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found] ` <6vFQ5-1iV-71@gated-at.bofh.it>
2006-07-06 21:39   ` Bodo Eggert

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=44A94F5D.4050206@gmail.com \
    --to=alon.barlev@gmail.com \
    --cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
    --cc=kernelnewbies@nl.linux.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=thehazard@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox