Re: [LI] Fwd: Linux headed for disaster? >> Doesn't Patents protect Or Isn't Binary code ENOUGH !!! <<

[gopi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Gopi K Garge)]

Hanish,

	You might want to use prefix and suffix using a character like
	"*" to highlight a point or a term in your email; using upper
	case implies that you are shouting (as in a flame...), which 
	I presume is not what you are ... or are you ? .. ;-)

--Gopi

C Hanish Menon sez:

> Hi

> This is a doubt I have, may be what I am thinking is wrong, Please do clarify.

> On Tue, 07 Dec 1999, Arun Sharma wrote:
> > But there are situations under which people want to preserve their
> > intellectual properties. And they should be free to do so. XFree86 4.0
> > is being smart here in defining a binary interface. So if a graphic
> > chip vendor wants to release a binary only driver, I can use it with
> > XFree86 4.0. Sure it may not work as well as a source only driver, but
> > it's better than nothing.
> > 

> When talking about not releasing Source based drivers we are talking about the
> possibility of one coming to know about the  Hardware logic built into these
> cards or so if I am not wrong. Which the hardware vendor doesn't want others to
> use with out permission from him. But is this Binary only driver realy solving
> the above problem? My points for this are

> a) He can PATENT it if its REALY UNIQUE. and this should protect him
> from others taking undue advantage or copying his effort with out getting
> consent from him.

> b) The Software drivers If I am not wrong May/Maynot provide enough info
> always. (I know it depends). But at the levels of Drivers, If someone is REALLY
> INTERESTED in GETTING to KNOW the HARDWARE LOGIC, the BINARY CODE IS IN ITSELF
> MORE THAN SUFFICIENT MOST OF THE TIMES.

> Thus I DON'T see as to WHAT advantage do hardware vendors have in NOT
> RELEASING SOURCE based Drivers. PLEASE CLARIFY.

> ---------
> Keep :-)
> HanishKVC
> http://hanishkvc.tripod.com/

--