From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261240AbUJ3R6y (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:58:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261238AbUJ3R6x (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:58:53 -0400 Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.193]:19890 "EHLO rproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261233AbUJ3R5s (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:57:48 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=lK8eH2nzapA6mSbY37qT5H4Pc9WpUsN6IpwrL8EkwtfPSYONoLH2fBSktMfJRa72YEe2MSRnu1xOjoVn6A+1kUvgXy6Q+K7NBk3Zuwz+cOUKG6MBXhiU9YeUU2yBZGS714CTSxVOfPfoczo1LvQcEkXR1XC88630OeOgJh5EwvQ= Message-ID: <9e473391041030105742477056@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:57:47 -0400 From: Jon Smirl Reply-To: Jon Smirl To: Alexander Stohr Subject: Re: Re: HARDWARE: Open-Source-Friendly Graphics Cards -- Viable?] Cc: airlied@gmail.com, kendallb@scitechsoft.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <001b01c4bea0$492dce40$8511050a@alexs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <1098806794.6000.7.camel@tara.firmix.at> <015101c4bde1$1051bce0$8511050a@alexs> <9e47339104102916141019bd23@mail.gmail.com> <001b01c4bea0$492dce40$8511050a@alexs> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org There are two ways to protect hardware innovations, trade secrets and patents. Patents are fully published and trade secrets are not. Trade secrets are not a very good way to protect things since once they leak they are gone. So if you have any good ideas get a patent on them, it is a much stronger protection and it grants you a legal monopoly. But patents are all published. So it makes no sense to hide things that are patented, you can always just read the patents and find out all of the details. I don't see any other reason for keeping the programming model secret other than fear of infringement suits. Many pieces of hardware have their specs published and they aren't being sued. Why would ATI fare any differently? I have the R200 specs, there is nothing in there that hasn't already been done on dozens of other cards. Why don't you publish the R200 specs on your website, it is older and interest in it is rapidly falling. I'll bet nothing earth shattering happens from publishing the spec except that a bunch of open source developers stop pestering your development support group. You would also get a lot of goodwill from the press announcement. I also don't see how you conclude publishing programming specs makes you a welfare organization. I still have to buy a card to use it. Open specs will most likely increase your sales not lower them. I'll keep working on building a base for X on GL. Right now I'm working on integrating fbdev/DRM into something more coherent. The basic idea is to bring up a standalone OpenGL with a few added things like mode setting and cursor support. X will then run on top of that using only the OpenGL API plus a few extensions for modes and cursors. Hopefully you'll use my code to build proprietary drivers that support the newer ATI cards in this model. -- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@gmail.com