i2o: death of free software?

i2o: death of free software?

Post by Gris » Wed, 19 Nov 1997 04:00:00



pasted from the i2o faq (www.i2osig.org):
  "The SIG (i2o special interest group) is set up so that only members and
their licensees can design with the specification, helping to ensure
compatibility. The operating system member vendors, such as Microsoft,
Novell and SCO, will test products for compliance to the common I2O
interface
specification. Only products meeting certification will be marketed and
labeled as i2o specification-compliant."

What's the deal? Does this mean that the specs will be unavailable for
those who would make freebsd/linux conform to the new hardware? What of
intel's much touted commitment to "open architecture"?
Perhaps a mole within SCO or Novell could "leak" the spec to an off-shore
website in Finland or Holland :) so that freeware developers can start
working on a port? Or maybe someone at redhat could join the SIG?
Someone on another group seemed quite alarmed about i2o as it pertains to
Linux & freeBSD... i'm wondering if it's as bad as he said?

--
*********************************
Hard work pays off in the future.
Laziness pays off NOW.
*********************************
To EMAIL me, *remove* the "x" from my address.

 
 
 

i2o: death of free software?

Post by Scott Wo » Fri, 21 Nov 1997 04:00:00


A long time ago, in a land far away,


> Perhaps a mole within SCO or Novell could "leak" the spec to an
> off-shore website in Finland or Holland :) so that freeware developers
> can start

Check out ftp://ftp.ulpgc.es/pub/linux/I2O/i2o_ver1-5.pdf

--
Scott Wood, Alt.atheism atheist #1000 (SA)
Stop Micro$oft Now!  http://sawst46.s.resnet.pitt.edu/teamhates/

Remove NOSPAM to reply.  All spam will be reported.

 
 
 

i2o: death of free software?

Post by Ben Lindstro » Fri, 21 Nov 1997 04:00:00



> A long time ago, in a land far away,

>> Perhaps a mole within SCO or Novell could "leak" the spec to an
>> off-shore website in Finland or Holland :) so that freeware developers
>> can start
> Check out ftp://ftp.ulpgc.es/pub/linux/I2O/i2o_ver1-5.pdf

I'm glad someone else has that pdf file.  Some *UNNAMED* person refused to
even tell me if he was *ABLE* to download it from me. =)    

The specs are interesting..not sure I would want hardware like that
in my PC. =)

 
 
 

i2o: death of free software?

Post by Anthony D. Tribel » Wed, 26 Nov 1997 04:00:00


: ... Or maybe someone at redhat could join the SIG? ...

Members probably can not republish the technical info, ie. no source code.
I2o and GNU copyleft may be mutually exclusive, no way to simultanously
satisfy both side's legal requirements. Assuming of course that GNU
copyleft is legally enforcable.

Tony
--
------------------
Tony Tribelli

 
 
 

i2o: death of free software?

Post by Tim Smi » Wed, 26 Nov 1997 04:00:00



Quote:>Members probably can not republish the technical info, ie. no source code.

I don't see anything in the I2O sig documents that say that.

--Tim Smith

 
 
 

i2o: death of free software?

Post by Kenneth R. Kinde » Sat, 29 Nov 1997 04:00:00




> >Members probably can not republish the technical info, ie. no source code.
> I don't see anything in the I2O sig documents that say that.

Tim, by definition of a NDA, you can't publish source... Notice the word
disclosure in non-disclosure agreement.  It's a well-established, admitted
by I2O fact that companies who join won't be able to publish their I2O
source, and hardware OEMs will be forced to make closed standards in context
to I2O related information.

We've told you this hundreds of times.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth R. Kinder

"Software development is caffeine, pizza, and gcc."
PGP FingerPrints: AC 63 8E FC 56 OC 6E F2 55 68 16 E4 07 62 12 32
------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

i2o: death of free software?

Post by Kenneth R. Kinde » Sat, 29 Nov 1997 04:00:00




> : ... Or maybe someone at redhat could join the SIG? ...
> Members probably can not republish the technical info, ie. no source code.
> I2o and GNU copyleft may be mutually exclusive, no way to simultanously
> satisfy both side's legal requirements. Assuming of course that GNU
> copyleft is legally enforcable.

I would hope that Red Hat wouldn't be corrupted by I2O.  Although, perhaps
is some company could join the I2O SIG and quietly and continuously (as in
updates) release the specs, we might have something.

Ultimately, I would hope that public opinion destroys I2O.  We need to make
Windows users, the smart ones, to oppose closed standards.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth R. Kinder

"Software development is caffeine, pizza, and gcc."
PGP FingerPrints: AC 63 8E FC 56 OC 6E F2 55 68 16 E4 07 62 12 32
------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

i2o: death of free software?

Post by Tim Smi » Sat, 29 Nov 1997 04:00:00



Quote:>> >Members probably can not republish the technical info, ie. no source code.

>> I don't see anything in the I2O sig documents that say that.

>Tim, by definition of a NDA, you can't publish source... Notice the word
>disclosure in non-disclosure agreement.  It's a well-established, admitted
>by I2O fact that companies who join won't be able to publish their I2O
>source, and hardware OEMs will be forced to make closed standards in context
>to I2O related information.

>We've told you this hundreds of times.

Kenneth, the non-disclosure sections of the I2O Initiative Agreement very
specifically say "I2O Specification" when they talk about what cannot be
disclosed.  I don't think they'd get very far trying to claim that source
to a program that implements I2O is the Specification.

I know you've told me this hundred of times.  You've also told me hundreds
of times that Microsoft has veto power over membership and can kick out
anyone they don't like who is already a member, and you've also reported
the wrong cost to obtain the spec and the right to design with it hundreds
of times.  And you were wrong each of those hundred times.

You should actually get a copy of the I2O Initiative Agreement and read
it (you can get it from their web page).

--Tim Smith

 
 
 

i2o: death of free software?

Post by Donovan Rebbech » Sat, 29 Nov 1997 04:00:00



> I would hope that Red Hat wouldn't be corrupted by I2O.  Although, perhaps
> is some company could join the I2O SIG and quietly and continuously (as in
> updates) release the specs, we might have something.

> Ultimately, I would hope that public opinion destroys I2O.  We need to make
> Windows users, the smart ones, to oppose closed standards.

I don't see much opposition to it, because it is 'reasonably' open as a
standard, in that the membership fee is relatively low. I doubt it will
generate much opposition because while it represents an attack on GPL
software, it will be perceived as ensuring a greater degree of
inter-operability among commercial products, and consequently, all the
people with the fat wallets will rush to support it. Unfortunately, it
has no hope of becoming GNU-ware, because of the NDA's.

Perhaps another alternative would be for some little organisation to
join, grab the specs and crank out enormous number of device drivers at
relatively low prices (maybe even free in a non-free kinda way). It
wouldn't be GNU, but it needn't be expensive either.

What seems problematic about the whole standard is that it seems more or
less impossible to directly support I20 in the kernel. The I20 drivers
would have to come as a seperate commercial bundle. Ughhhh!

-- Donovan

 
 
 

i2o: death of free software?

Post by Kenneth R. Kinde » Mon, 01 Dec 1997 04:00:00




> >> >Members probably can not republish the technical info, ie. no source code.

> >> I don't see anything in the I2O sig documents that say that.

> >Tim, by definition of a NDA, you can't publish source... Notice the word
> >disclosure in non-disclosure agreement.  It's a well-established, admitted
> >by I2O fact that companies who join won't be able to publish their I2O
> >source, and hardware OEMs will be forced to make closed standards in context
> >to I2O related information.

> >We've told you this hundreds of times.
> Kenneth, the non-disclosure sections of the I2O Initiative Agreement very
> specifically say "I2O Specification" when they talk about what cannot be
> disclosed.  I don't think they'd get very far trying to claim that source
> to a program that implements I2O is the Specification.

Read on.  First of all, I2O Specification could be interpreted to mean source
code.  Secondly, on at least one occasion (I think two or three) I have
quoted you NDA text on this issue.  Here's some of interest.

I suggest you read section 11 of the contract at
http://www.veryComputer.com/

Quote:> I know you've told me this hundred of times.  You've also told me hundreds
> of times that Microsoft has veto power over membership and can kick out
> anyone they don't like who is already a member,

They do.  It's called a vote...  Someone else told you that Microsoft alone
had power to do so.  I remember that post.

Quote:> and you've also reported
> the wrong cost to obtain the spec and the right to design with it hundreds
> of times.  And you were wrong each of those hundred times.

No, I've told the correct cost of $5,000 for the beefy membership.  $2,000
of course to *obtain* a copy of the standard, in the weenie agreement.  I
based my facts on Linux News' interpretation of the NDA.  Although I did
initially misunderstand the ability of the weenie version, you seemed to
think the $5,000 version didn't even exist.

Get over it.

Quote:> You should actually get a copy of the I2O Initiative Agreement and read
> it (you can get it from their web page).

Tim, I've quoted the NDA for you in previous posts.  Time and again you've
said this, and I can assure you I've read it a few times.  I've also had a
friend who was a lawyer read it, and he agrees - no source code.  Tim, the
people at the SIG admit it.  Here's some quotes from Wired News
(http://www.veryComputer.com/) previous articles...

Quote:> [INLINE] Consortium Segregates the Bus
> 3:07 pm PDT 21 Jul 97 - The I2O, a group developing a new computer bus
> specification, is charging US$5,000 for membership. Smaller developers
> see it as a move to kill the free software community.

[ ... ]

Quote:> Because software development for I2O peripherals is forbidden for
> nonmembers, the US$5,000 yearly membership dues will put individuals
> and small organizations out of the game. Members themselves are not
> permitted to disclose their source code,

             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[ ... ]

Quote:> But, says LoBue, "I try to tell these people that one, this isn't a
> * and two, the founders are not stupid, ignorant people
> unaware of a free approach to licensing - so grow up, get over it.

               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

He's almost saying here that you can't release free I2O software.  The only
reason he didn't here, was because every single person who ever heard of I2O
seems to be aware of that, with the notable exception of you, Tim.

Quote:> Either join or wait until such time as they feel that it doesn't need
> to be licensed. Boy, they're sure having a lot of fun on their soap box
> lecturing about how ruin and damnation will happen because there are
> 'proprietary specs.' I would claim that I2O is not a proprietary spec
> - anybody is free to join the SIG."

In conclusion Tim, whenever I read your posts, I find myself researching and
quoting to restate the obvious.  It's getting tiresome, especially when I've
already corrected you.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth R. Kinder

"Software development is caffeine, pizza, and gcc."
PGP FingerPrints: AC 63 8E FC 56 OC 6E F2 55 68 16 E4 07 62 12 32
------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

i2o: death of free software?

Post by Tim Smi » Mon, 01 Dec 1997 04:00:00



Quote:>> I know you've told me this hundred of times.  You've also told me hundreds
>> of times that Microsoft has veto power over membership and can kick out
>> anyone they don't like who is already a member,

>They do.  It's called a vote...  Someone else told you that Microsoft alone
>had power to do so.  I remember that post.

Umm...having a vote is not having veto power.

...

Quote:>> and you've also reported
>> the wrong cost to obtain the spec and the right to design with it hundreds
>> of times.  And you were wrong each of those hundred times.

>No, I've told the correct cost of $5,000 for the beefy membership.  $2,000
>of course to *obtain* a copy of the standard, in the weenie agreement.  I
>based my facts on Linux News' interpretation of the NDA.  Although I did
>initially misunderstand the ability of the weenie version, you seemed to
>think the $5,000 version didn't even exist.

The weenie agreement is sufficient to do design and sell or give away
products using I2O.  The beefy agreement is only necessary if you want
to propose changes to I2O or you want to vote.  I've always known the
beefy version existed.  I've also always known that most entities that
will want to use I2O or develop for I2O won't need the beefy version.

--Tim Smith