linux-kernel - Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 24 Dec 2006 01:35:41 -0500
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Erik Mouw <erik@...ddisk-recovery.com>
Cc:	Giuseppe Bilotta <bilotta78@...pop.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 12:59:21 +0100, Erik Mouw said:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> > At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in
> > implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that
> > they licensed from other companies (I believe some of the OpenGL stuff that
> > originated at SGI and got bought by Microsoft is involved, but I have no
> > hard references for actual patent numbers).  And then they have the big
> > problem - do they keep using the patent in order to boost performance,
> > or no?
> 
> Wasn't the whole idea about patents that you publish your invention?

(Argh - I was too busy coming down with the flu to carefully read what I
wrote, and as a result I was a tad less that totally specific and accurate.
Hopefully I get it closer to right this time. ;)

Patent licenses are also a good place to hang all sorts of side agreements on -
and I'm pretty sure that the *actual* intellectual property involved is a
witches' brew of patents, copyrights, and trade secrets, all wrapped up with a
nice "thou shalt not disclose *any* of it" wrapper.

In any case, there isn't much that *any* company can do to open-source
something when they've got any sort of legally binding NDA attached to
3rd-party intellectual property.  At best, they can design an entirely
new product that totally avoids the IP in question - but as I noted last
time, the company *does* have to do a sanity check when 90% of the market
doesn't care in the slightest.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped