On 2001.11.21 07:27 Mike A. Harris wrote: > On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Dorin Lazar wrote: > > >> Sorry to bother you again. I talked with the people from ATI - > they said > >> that (and I quote) > >> > >> Hello Dorin. > >> > >> I noticed in your form you are doing work with Linux. We have provided > the > >> necessary documents to the Xfree86 and DRI projects. In order to > co-ordinate > >> development efforts, we recommend you join one of the projects > mentioned. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Jason Schellenberg > >> ATI Developer Relations > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> As it seems, it sort of the egg and the hen... > >> Are those documents available, somewhere? They really think they > are... > >> Thank you for your time... > >> Dorin Lazar > >>
Perhaps this is just a misunderstanding. Have you mentioned that you intended to help in the DRI support for the ATI mach64 based cards. I have done so, and I was given the register specs for the Rage Pro. > >> On Thursday 15 November 2001 06:13 am, you wrote: > >> > On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Dorin Lazar wrote: > >> > > > to check that out (utah-glx.sf.net). Many of us have > documentation > >> > > > from ATI as well, you can apply to their developer program for > docs at > >> > > > http://apps.ati.com/developers/devform1.asp > >> > > > >> > > I cannot get that kind of documentation. I am from Romania - there > is no > >> > > such option, nor "Other country" in their list... :( What do I do? > >> > > >> > I'd suggest sending an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED], as I can't speak for > ATI > >> > or their licensing or NDA policies. Perhaps it's just an oversight > on > >> > ATI's part in creating their registration form. They seem to be one > of > >> > the more friendly companies when it comes to helping open source > >> > developers. Good luck! > > I'd just like to comment a bit about the mechanisms involved > here, at least as I myself see them. It is not limited to any > particular vendor nor to any particular individual seeking > information. Also, my comments are solely my own, and do not in > any way reflect any opinions of Red Hat, or of any hardware > vendors, etc. > > In a perfect world, all vendors would just allow access to their > documentation outright and freely. However, we aren't in that > utopia yet, and they do indeed control access to their > documentation, wether or not individuals like that or not. So, > to _get_ to that documentation, we very much need to play by > _their_ rules. Again, I speak of no particular company here, or > individuals. > > If they want to restrict access to information, then IMHO, there > needs to be _some_ mechanism in place to determine who gets > documentation, and who does not get it. If it were as simple as: > Joe Blow signs up, is automatically accepted without any > question, clicks on NDA agreement, and then gets the docs, they > might as well just publish the docs on their website freely for > anyone to download anyways, as they wouldn't be restricting > information at all. > > Who should they give their docs to? Do they want just anyone > having the docs? Or do they want competant developers that are > most likely to _really_ use the information to produce real > results? > > What metric gauges the decision? Does Joe programmer have a CS > degree in 3D work, thus more likely to successfully use the > information to complete some open source work? Is he a video > game programmer? What has he done? Or is he just someone who is > wanting to help, and is good intentioned, but might not actually > have the skills and/or time to truely contribute? How do they > know? For all they know, someone could say they are working on > fixing a bug in XFree86, however actually they are working for a > competitor for example. Who knows what the logic behind it all, > or cares. Either way, some metric is needed to decide how to > divulge information. > > If the purpose of using an NDA is to restrict access to > information, yet let *capable* individuals access that > information to yield working results, and thus improve support > for and promote a hardware vendor's product well, there needs to > be _some_ metric with which to guage someone, and wether they are > *truely* capable, or wether they are just "good intentioned". > > If someone is working for a graphics company for example, is > affiliated with some past work such as DRI, XFree86, perhaps has > their name in the kernel credits for graphics work, or has some > *credential* showing their capabilities, then it would stand to > reason the chances are much higher that they could use the > information and produce results. Probability-wise that is. > > If someone is not working for a company who does graphics, or is > writing video drivers, or affiliated with XFree86 and/or DRI, or > some other similar thing, they _could_ (not would, just *could*) > potentially be a higher risk of information leakage IMHO. It > stands to reason then, that a company may want to see some > credentials before allowing access to information. By having > people become XFree86 members first, I think it is a VERY good > metric to see who is serious on working on code. XFree86 does > not have difficult membership requirements, and any programmer > who is capable of taking register level documentation from a > hardware manufacturer, and producing useful results from it, is > also VERY capable of quickly becoming an XFree86 member. > > To do so, one need only fix a bug in XFree86, or perhaps add a > feature, even something small. It is a small measure of one's > capabilities to do the job. Once someone has passed the test of > writing some small patch, that fixes something in X, they have > shown _some_ level of troubleshooting skill, some level of > proficiency, and are _much_ more likely to also continue to > contribute to the project in the future. By passing that test, > one can elect to join XFree86 as a member, which involves reading > a web page, firing off an email, and then bouncing a few emails, > agreeing to the XFree86 NDA. > > Once one is an XFree86 member, they open up a lot of doors, > including access to information that XFree86 has under NDA, and > other private stuff. One can then come to a hardware vendor, > asking for technical specifications under NDA with something more > than "I know how to program C, and have good intentions", they > can say, "I am an XFree86 member wanting to add support for foo, > and/or fix bar in driver baz on your fooblaster card." I don't > know of any XFree86 developer who has been refused information > by vendors who support open source after having adequately went > through the right channels, and proved that they are truely > serious about the work they'd like to do, by passing a few litmus > tests. > > In all honesty, I think if someone thinks fixing a bug in XFree86 > and becoming a member is too much of a hassle, then they are most > likely not going to come through on any serious code at all > anyways, and are thus more likely to be a information leak to > a particular hardware vendor than an asset. > > People certainly don't need to jump into the lake completely, it > makes at least some sense to me that they should commit to > dipping their leg in up to their knee, rather than just putting > their toe in, and wanting full scuba gear. Scuba equipment given > to them, may end up sitting on a shelf, rather than being used > for whatever it is scuba divers use their equipment for. > > Ok.. that was an oddball analogy, but it does the job. ;o) > > My above thoughts on the logic involved behind these processes, > may be way off mark, but that is what I've come up with, while > watching the processes at work, and trying to look at the > situation from the various different sides involved. > > I guess it could be stated more like this: > > "You can get much further with a smile and a few bugfixes > accepted into the code base, than you can get with a smile > alone." > > You can quote me on that. ;o) > > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Mike A. Harris Shipping/mailing address: > OS Systems Engineer 190 Pittsburgh Ave., Sault Ste. Marie, > XFree86 maintainer Ontario, Canada, P6C 5B3 > Red Hat Inc. Phone: (705)949-2136 > http://www.redhat.com ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris > Red Hat XFree86 mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > General open IRC discussion: #xfree86 on irc.openprojects.net > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > I agree with you, Mike. I was mentalized to the idea that I wouldn't do much diving in the beggining. That's why I wasked in what I should be of best help... because I do want to _help_ - not get in the way of anybody - and there are lot of different kinds of helping... In the meanwhile I'll just start study the information I have in the my free time: the DRI cvs, the utah-glx cvs, the GATOS source, and the specs... Regards, Jose Fonseca _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
