Timothy Miller wrote:
On 7/11/06, Peter TB Brett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd rather have the certification logo just basically mean, "With this
product, the manufacturer is playing nice as far as working with the OSS
community is concerned." It would be done on a product-by-product
basis, so manufacturers can choose *not* to free up docs for some
products, if they wish to. Then as and when free drivers are written,
we can encourage manufacturers to add notes about them to their
packaging/website.
If the certification doesn't care so much about open source hardware,
doesn't that limit Traversal's advantage? Lots of things have open
source drivers. None of them have open source hardware.
Hmm, I see what you mean -- good point. The function of OHF is to
encourage the production of genuine open source hardware. However, it's
not as if *enough* things have open source drivers. :P
It would be nice to be able to have two different schemes, one for
products with full documentation and one for products that are genuinely
free. But I worry that it would be hard to distinguish between the two
and would introduce unnecessary confusion, in which case the latter
should take preference.
Tricky problem.
Peter
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
