Well, fortunately this has turned out to be a non-issue.
I just went to www.infinibandta.org and the 1.2 spec is available for
download.
http://www.infinibandta.org/specs/register/publicspec/vol1r1_2.zip
http://www.infinibandta.org/specs/register/publicspec/vol2r1_2.zip
Roland Dreier wrote:
At 02:11 PM 10/9/2004, you wrote:
Jeff If
there is questionable code, that is _not_ a justification
Jeff to add more.
I guess my point was not that the bluetooth stack is somehow
questionable, but rather that the IP policies of a standards bodies
are really not a good reason to keep code out
At 11:27 AM 10/11/2004, Ronald G. Minnich wrote:
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Michael
Krause wrote:
Spec for free or spec for a price - neither grants anyone rights to
any
IP contained within the specifications or on the technologies
that
surround the specification. The change in spec cost, while
On Sad, 2004-10-09 at 22:11, Roland Dreier wrote:
I guess my point was not that the bluetooth stack is somehow
questionable, but rather that the IP policies of a standards bodies
are really not a good reason to keep code out of the kernel. If
someone can name one patent that the IB driver
Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED] :
it's orthogonal to any IP issues. Since the Linux kernel contains a
lot of code written to specs available only under NDA (and even
reverse-engineered code where specs are completely unavailable), I
don't think the expense should be an issue.
One can say
Roland it's orthogonal to any IP issues. Since the Linux kernel
Roland contains a lot of code written to specs available only
Roland under NDA (and even reverse-engineered code where specs
Roland are completely unavailable), I don't think the expense
Roland should be an issue.
Hi all,
Enough people have been asking me about this lately, that I thought I
would just bring it up publicly here.
It seems that the Infiniband group (IBTA) has changed their licensing
agrement of the basic Infiniband spec. See:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18922
for more info
At 01:22 PM 10/8/2004, Greg KH wrote:
Hi all,
Enough people have been asking me about this lately, that I thought
I
would just bring it up publicly here.
It seems that the Infiniband group (IBTA) has changed their
licensing
agrement of the basic Infiniband spec. See:
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[2] Sure, any person who has a copy of the kernel source tree could be a
target for any of a zillion other potential claims, nothing new there,
but the point here is they are explicitly stating that they will go
after non-IBTA members who
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 04:49:16PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[2] Sure, any person who has a copy of the kernel source tree could be a
target for any of a zillion other potential claims, nothing new there,
but the point here is they are explicitly
On Fri, 2004-10-08 at 19:13, Greg KH wrote:
All I know is a number of different people, from different companies are
suddenly very worried about this. The fact that they don't want to
comment on it in public leads me to believe that there is something
behind their fears.
Sounds like our
The increase in cost for the spec is rather unfortunate but I think
it's orthogonal to any IP issues. Since the Linux kernel contains a
lot of code written to specs available only under NDA (and even
reverse-engineered code where specs are completely unavailable), I
don't think the expense should
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 04:27:14PM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
The increase in cost for the spec is rather unfortunate but I think
it's orthogonal to any IP issues. Since the Linux kernel contains a
lot of code written to specs available only under NDA (and even
reverse-engineered code where
Roland Dreier wrote:
As for IP, as far as I know, there has been no change to any of the
bylaws or other members agreements. If there is some specific
provision that concerns you, please bring it to our attention -- the
IBTA in general and the IBTA steering committee in general have been
very
Roland Dreier wrote:
Jeff Read the member agreement :) It -explicitly- does -not-
Jeff require waiving of patent claims related to any
Jeff implementation of IB.
Jeff That's different from ATA, SCSI, USB, the list goes on...
Fair enough, but read the Bluetooth SIG patent agreement
15 matches
Mail list logo
