[nycbug-talk] Fwd: Firmware license
Wed Oct 27 23:21:31 EDT 2004
Sorry for the delayed response on this . .. .
On Oct 27, 2004, at 1:27 PM, Sunny Dubey wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 October 2004 12:01, G. Rosamond wrote:
>> More on the firmware issues. . .This is from OBSD-misc, and we had
>> initially discussed Intel's Centrino as NYC*BUG was launched . . .
>> Of course there's another email to hit at Intel.
> I don't think Intel is going to care.
There's two points to doing petitions and emails. . .first to attempt
to pressure and say yes there is a market, but also to educate those
doing the petitioning on the issues relevant to open source developers.
> If millions of screaming linux folks can't get them to change, few
> will. Intel's responce to us linux folks was to create a sourceforge
> with OSS drivers that required the use of the binary only firmware.
> best part was the *intel employees* on that project itself couldn't
> use the
> *full* specs either.
I'm aware of that. . .
> Also, laptop ODM's, resellers, etc weren't to hot on Centrino either.
> Intel didn't care, and forced it down their throats as well.
Okay. . .
> So long as Intel is the *only* provider if high performance, low power
> CPUs, they can keep doing as they want. They have a monopoly on the
> market, and they know it.
Agree. . .but things do change. . .Lots of firms have made the changes,
and I think the clear courting of AMD to the open source market maybe
is a sign.
Your insight is always valuable, but I think the attempt is worth it. .
.I know lots of emails have been pumped out of the OBSD-misc list.
Intel and TI are both aware, but the barrages are useful in reminding
I don't have blind faith in pleading to large corporations. But I also
know that just the act of this taking place breaks down some barriers
within the open source community.
The other firms that have done it weren't monopolies, that is true.
But Intel is not some invulnerable empire when it comes to competition.
More information about the talk