Re: Binary Drivers

Horst H. von Brand
2006-12-23T23:11:21Z

David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
> > Two of the specific arguments I've heard are (a) that the board (and
> > its hardware interfaces that the documentation would describe) involve
> > IP licensed from a third party, which the board manufacturer does not
> > have a legal right to disclose,

> If they can't disclose it, they can't sell it. If they can't sell it, it's
> fraud to tell someone that they can buy it. If a contract with a third party
> limits your ability to sell something to someone, you have to *tell* *them*
> that they do not get all of the rights of ownership because you don't own
> some of them and hence can't transfer them.

They aren't /selling/ you the rights to the driver, just charging you for
its /use/.

[...]

> > or (b) that there is, in fact, no
> > suitable documentation, because the boards are developed somewhat
> > fluidly and the driver is developed directly from low-level knowledge
> > that simply isn't written down in a form suitable for passing on.

> You can't sell something that doesn't exist. If you sell a car even though
> you can't explain how anyone could drive it, that's fraud.

Nonsense.

[...]

> > If you're building products with no expectation of supporting outside
> > driver developers, both of those are quite possible.

> And they're both quite fraudulent. You cannot both sell something and keep
> its construction a secret.

It is quite regularly done, so this argument won't fly.
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513