Hamish wrote:
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 03:15, Terry Hancock wrote:
> So ... 'free hardware' is a selling point. But I also acknowledge
> that a company needs to protect it's proprietary edge if it is
> investing in card or chip production. There are a number of
> well-defined strategies for implementing that balance though:
> license-delay schemes, proprietary enhancements (but with a solid
> free-licensed reference design), etc.
At the risk of being shouted down, I say BULL.
Hmm. To which bit?
The point I was making here is that *open hardware* (well-documented
interfaces) is a requirement, but *free hardware* (completely documented
implementation) is not. OTOH, free hardware *is* a selling point -- given
a choice, and a price which is not extraordinarily high, I'll expect to pay
more for that privilege. But I see it primarily as "future-proofing", so if
the information is guaranteed in some way to be published in 3 years, that
works about as well as immediate publication for me (for me, the issue
with delayed publication is not the delay, but the doubt -- will the company
follow through on that promise?).
I'm not in the business, so I can't honestly judge the viability of
publishing
your complete implementation right away. If there's a strong reason to
keep enough secret to recoup costs (and a reasonable profit) before the
product is opened up to view, I can live with that.
All they need to do is build a chip with an open & documented
interface. Who cares HOW it does it, as long as it does what it says
on the tin...
Ah. Then you actually agree with what I said.
I would classify that as "open", not "free". "Free" hardware means
I could (assuming I had a chip fab, surface mount oven, and skills
I don't have ;-) ) build the product myself from the available
documentation.
"Open" means I've got all the information needed to use the
device (to write a driver, say).
(Sorry. Shouldn't post when I've been drinking I know).
Heh. Probably not ... always gets people into trouble. ;-)
> But this
thread is gettign annoying. If you don't like the OGD, build your own
competing product & sell that.
Well, I can't speak for anybody else, but I'm personally talking about
the OGD project. I'm saying that if Traversal Tech needs to delay
implementation design publication, I can live with that (but to be honest,
I was until quite recently confused about the status of the project and
had "Traversal" and "Tech Source" confused).
OTOH, since OGD has become a 100% community project, it seems
unlikely that such a trade is necessary, so my point is probably moot
anyway.
Cheers,
Terry
--
Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
