On 7/10/06, Attila Kinali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 20:48:14 -0400
"Timothy Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of the first things that OHF should do is consider the issue of
> Traversal's release of the "withheld" RTL. That is, regarding the
> time delay and such. Write up a proposal for how you think it should
> be handled. Be sure to cover every way in which early release of the
> IP could hurt our cause. Remember that if Traversal can't do
> business, then Traversal goes out of business, and you're left without
> your principal hardware engineers (who will have lost their shirts and
> will have to struggle to recover their lives), and it will look very
> bad for the general viability of open hardware. If the proposal is
> sound, then Traversal can release the RTL into the hands of the OHF
> who will then release it under agreed-upon parameters.
IMHO Traversal's first priority should be to get the chip out
of the fab. If it cares too much about how and when to release
the RTL, then it will waste some of its energy on two different
battlegrounds.
True. I can't even begin to count up how much time I've wasted
debating this issue. And what's more, I've debated this with a lot of
people who are basically arguing that we should give them something,
but they have nothing to offer in return. Contribute to the project?
NO! I just want your RTL (even though I have no idea what it is or
how to use it)!
Sorry. There have been a handful of real individuals who have really
frustrated me, because they're fanatical leeches.
OHF on the other hand could handle the whole community issue.
When what information is distributed, how releases are handled
and such. Note that these need not to be the people from Traversal,
but they need to be in close contact with them.
Also OHF could do something to protect Traversals IP: give out
certificates to open hardware friendly companies. This would be
a good marker for people who would like to buy OH devices.
Sounds like a good idea. We also have trademarks we can use. We
should get them registered, but you can also protect unregistered ones
(if I understand correctly). Only Traversal can use names like TRV,
OGA, OGD, OGC, etc. If someone wants to copy the underlying code
that's under GPL, they have to pay for it or change the name.
Mandrake did this. As for "OGP", that's kinda iffy, because it's the
community project. We might want to let Traversal own it or OHF or
both or something.
This way rip off companies would have a much harder life.
Apropos certificate, a "OGA vX.Y compatible" certificate
for sold devices would be also a good thing. Then anyone
could modify, build and sell derivatives, but the customer
would still have some sort of guarantee that the device
would work as he expects it. (yes, rejecting this
certificate to rip off companies, would also gain us
some security)
Also, there's the issue of patents. I think some patents could
protect our IP from ripoffs (although it doesn't deal with the legit
GPL case). It could also be a good source of revenue for Traversal
(when dealing with non-Free Software entities).
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
