From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1BVYHR-0002of-Eg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 12:07:53 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1BVYHN-0002lp-Nx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 12:07:50 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BVYHN-0002jW-E5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 12:07:49 -0400 Received: from [216.254.0.202] (helo=mail2.speakeasy.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.34) id 1BVYGj-0006s3-N6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 12:07:10 -0400 Received: from dsl081-088-222.lax1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO [192.168.111.2]) ([64.81.88.222]) (envelope-sender ) by mail2.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 2 Jun 2004 16:06:59 -0000 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Cirrus Logic From: "John R. Hogerhuis" In-Reply-To: <40BDBB7A.1080805@fabianowski.de> References: <40BDC1B8.2070301@witch.dyndns.org> <40BDBB7A.1080805@fabianowski.de> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1086192451.410.237.camel@aragorn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:07:32 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: jhoger@pobox.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 04:35, Bartosz Fabianowski wrote: > I agree that it is very unlikely anybody would care. Most developers > also find it boring and annoying to try and figure out the legalities > behind every little step they take. I personally just happen to be > interested in the legal matters behind things. That is why I posed the > question in the first place and that is why I am still interested in > seeing whether I can get official permission from Cirrus. Not that > others care, I just consider this an interesting task for myself. > I too take interest in these legal issues that crop up. However, I'm not sure why use of the manuals is an interesting legal issue when there's no obvious legal issue... I've never heard using published documentation to implement a clone or emulation of something being an issue unless you are under NDA or it involves a patented algorithm. Am I not understanding the problem? Can you think of an example of such a case? I wonder if Microsoft has a similar clause in their Win32 documentation, and whether that would stop the Wine project. And would Microsoft give their permission? If they could effectively do this, Microsoft would have done this to head off Wine. In any event, if you do find someone to ask the convervative answer from their lawyers would most likely be "no." That's the knee-jerk reaction when their shareholder interest is orthogonal to the request or possibly could negatively impact their shareholders. Then what? Is there any positive interest for the shareholders? If you were to get a positive response, you'd have to come up with some reasoning that shows that it is in their shareholders interest to allow their documentation and hardware to be used to make an emulation. Otherwise I can almost promise that you will get a "no." Better to ask forgiveness than permission in some cases. You'd be more likely to get the answer you want from an independent lawyer than the successors-in-interest of Cirrus whoever they may be. -- John.