Samsung documentation

[Wolfgang Spraul]

Andy,

> Wah if it means to hobble the product because of this issue it is a
> mistake.  It is just my opinion but if we don't have 2442 open docs
> either but GTA02 exists.  If we make a less good product and it does
> less well than we should, it means we can't win anywhere else, our  
> voice
> is muted or not heard on this issue anyway.
>
> What we can do here is document code and create large comments to the
> fullest extent of the letter of any agreement about that with Samsung.
> Samsung provide drivers for most things already, it takes most of the
> sting out IMO.

Make no mistake about the seriousness of Openmoko's Freedom  
Requirements.
We chose 2442 for GTA02 because at the time the full User Manual was  
available from a publicly accessible URL.
Samsung promised us (Harald knows more) several times that they would  
also give us redistribution rights because we felt uneasy that we had  
to point people to a URL we knew could disappear one day.
The opposite of the promise happened.
Instead of giving us redistribution rights they have now withdrawn the  
public URL. Next step is a proper NDA, I'm wondering why they don't  
say that already.

You are right that we could retreat to only 'documenting' our source  
codes well, rather than insisting on an open User's Manual.
But it would be a big step back for the FOSS community.
We will continue to work with Samsung on this, if we cannot convince  
them to go back to open that probably will speedup our switch to  
another CPU.
If anybody has ideas on how to approach Samsung or how to solve this  
problem, please let me know.
Best Regards,
Wolfgang

On Mar 21, 2008, at 5:00 PM, Andy Green wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>> Andy,
>> I just got this from Samsung:
>
>>> We are very sorry, but we cannot provide your requested information
>>> according to the company security policies.
>>>
>>> You are required to register with your company e-mail address to get
>>> the requested information.
>
> I think it means somebody or some script just filtered it on email
> domain and said, "wah that is not a Tier 1 OEM I recognize".  But I
> agree -->
>
>> Not sure what to do next. I think for now we have to consider  
>> Samsung to
>> have closed off documentation for their chips.
>> I will try registering from a number of other e-mail accounts I  
>> have and
>> report on the results.
>> What should we do? Openmoko can get the documentation under NDA but  
>> that
>> is not how we understand openess.
>> Maybe we need to consider other chips?
>
> Wah if it means to hobble the product because of this issue it is a
> mistake.  It is just my opinion but if we don't have 2442 open docs
> either but GTA02 exists.  If we make a less good product and it does
> less well than we should, it means we can't win anywhere else, our  
> voice
> is muted or not heard on this issue anyway.
>
> What we can do here is document code and create large comments to the
> fullest extent of the letter of any agreement about that with Samsung.
> Samsung provide drivers for most things already, it takes most of the
> sting out IMO.
>
>> I will try to get open documentation from Samsung, ideas welcome.
>
> Your methods were eventually successful for NXP (impressively).
>
>> P.S.: Is there any underground URL on the web where the docs are
>> available? They used to be available broadly so I guess lots of  
>> people
>> have them...
>
> A quick google only found product briefs.
>
> - -Andy
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFH43kkOjLpvpq7dMoRAnfZAJ4zWEaDvolKe/BoJ4EIFXOngWCuFACfX2w6
> +i6vtec+4djrnGSbJbnprpk=
> =9a87
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----