[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The i2o Bus: A Conspriacy against Free Software?

>From http://www.i2osig.org/TechBack.html:
> While I2O provides a compelling alternative to traditional monolithic driver models,
> its intent is not
> to create an entirely new interface to replace the driver architectures currently in
> existence.
> Rather, the objective is to provide an open, standards-based approach, which is
Doesn't sound to me like it's that open.

> complementary
> to existing drivers, and provides a framework for the rapid development of a new
> generation of
> portable, intelligent I/O solutions. (See Figure 1)

The abstraction in the standard in seperating the system from the
peripheral is definitely a step in the right direction though.

>From http://www.i2osig.org/GetSpec.html
> The I2O Specification is not only a technical work product of the SIG members, but
> an agreement
> about the intellectual content and the terms and conditions for how the
> Specification can be used.
The above sentence is what I really object to. If they truly want an open spec
then they should release it after a period of time - say 6 months (as they have
done the work I have no objection to letting them get a head start).
> Therefore, to make the Specification available to non-members a non-disclosure
> agreement
> must be executed.

I did notice this one section in the NDA:
> 3. Limitation of Liability. The Recipient will not be liable for the disclosure
> of any of the Confidential Information if the Recipient proves that the information
> disclosed is :
>   (a) in the public domain other than by a breach of the NDA on the part of the
>   Recipient; or
>   (b) rightfully received from a third party without any obligation of
>   confidentialyity; or
>   (c) rightfully known to the Recipient without any limitation on use or disclosure
>   prior to its receipt from the Disclosing Party; or
>   (d) independently developed by the Recipient as evidenced by written documents or
>   records of the Recipient; or
>   (e) generally made available to third parties by the Disclosing Party without
>   restriction on disclosure.

This sounds like we could free the members of the onerous aspects of the
agreement if the spec was reverse engineered and made public. :)
They've probably anticipated this and will therefore make annoying changes
every few years to keep ahead.

Actually, I'm not too worried. If this becomes popular, then it will get bogged
down and not be able to change. A splinter group will then form with an 'improved'
spec and chaos will reign once again.

- Sue

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: