Le vendredi 24 novembre 2006 à 19:31 +0100, Petter Urkedal a écrit : > I think the issue of closed firmware value add boils down to how the > product is marketed. We might require that when the OHF mark is used, > then the company must distinguish the features provided by the hardware > from those added by any proprietary firmware and drivers. That is, when > OHF mark is used in marketing, the marketing must be fair with respect > to the OHF mark. Otherwise would be misleading advertising. Once the > FOSS community has created a firmware/software stack, the implied > features can be advertised along with the OHF mark. In practise this > could be done by requiring that a statement is placed next to the logo > with information where to find the alternative feature-set. > > > 4. Should the OHF define multiple levels of open? Or just one? > > Sounds like a good idea. The marks should look similar to establish OHF > brand recognition, but with clearly distinct features indicating the > level of openness. So, at least three levels of openess: - documented - core - firmware What is the most important of them ? It seems to be the core level, no ? What I mean by 'important' is the level which otherwise would have limited the community. > _______________________________________________ > Open-graphics mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics > List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.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)
