Re: ACX100 Firmware Licensing

On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 12:44:04PM -0700, Sam Leffler wrote:

> And this form of activism also turns off lots of vendors.  The open 
> source market is virtually non-existent to vendors so you will never get 
> anyone to do anything by arguing they should make a change because it 
> will increase their sales.  All the vendors Theo&co are going after are 
> bit players with inferior products that are in trouble in one way or 
> another.  The proper way to make things happen is to find a vendor that 
> is basing a product on an OSS and use their influence to make things 
> happen.  You can crow about your wins but in the long run you will 
> pollute the enviromment for others that are trying to do similar things 
> but are not pounding their chest in public and/or exhorting the hords to 
> a jihad on wireless vendors.

If you're telling the hords to sit down, shut up and quit rocking the
boat, because you're already sailing smoothly, I'd like to ask where
you're heading and how far you already got. That is, will we get
firmware that is freely redistributable by anyone for any purpose, for a
good number of available chipsets? Or is that not a common goal at all?

In your book, what's the difference between grassroots activism asking
responsible citizens to voice their opinions in a peaceful and polite
manner and exhorting the hords to a jihad?

What's the difference between rationally evaluating the success of a
strategy and crowing about wins?

Intel and TI are 'bit players' compared to whom?

Daniel