On 2006-11-24, Lourens Veen wrote: > But then it's not the job of the OHF to say that proprietary firmware is > evil; the OHF should stick to saying that the hardware should be open, > or at the very least open standards compliant so that Free firmware > _can_ be written. Saying that that _should_ be done is the job of the > OSI and the FSF.
With that, I think our opinions converge. If, OTOH we deal with a lesser trademark which only covers open specifications, then we have another issue: 5. The (hardware, firmware)-combination may be fully specified, whereas there is insufficient documentation to write a replacement firmware. IIRC, this has been discussed elsewhere in relation to the Intel wireless cards. If OHF is to push for openness, then I think there should at least be a distinct mark for manufacturers who don't hide their hardware behind firmware. Maybe that should be the only "lesser" mark? _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
