[PATCH] fix-lcm-flicker.patch

[joerg]

Am Do  27. März 2008 schrieb Werner Almesberger:
> joerg wrote:
> > Amazing how far we can get with a few datasheet pages available ;-)
> 
> Indeed. But it's also sad that it (still) took us so long to figure
> out the right question to ask.
> 
> So I guess we should adopt some time-honored practice from robbers
> when approaching companies for documentation, and demand "give us
> everything you have", not timidly ask "could you please hand us
> what you think we'll need".

That's why i think there has to be better contracts. the "chip makers" want to 
sell their product. Surely OM/FIC will have all sort of negotiations (long 
term availability, pricing etc), precontracts and i dunno what else with 
them. It's an *absolute must* to have a clause in there *from first day on* 
saying OM is buying a product with *free documentation*, and the 
documentation has to be delivered to OM *prior* to first chip. If those guys 
really think they can cheat with the docs, we have to put a gun on their 
breast and let them read the contracts. And they want to sell chips, not 
create docs for nobody, i think.
Some days ago I suggested to Wolfgang, it might be more easy wording for the 
chip fab guys if OM tell them, we will sell our product with all docs 
included - just sounds better than "we need FOSS/creativeCommons datasheets". 
Turns out to be the same in the end, regarding the docs ;-). And with such a 
clause in the contracts, it is *absolutely* clear to them they will break our 
product spec goals and thus tear down the whole product, when they refuse to 
deliver docs. If we just kindly ask for "docs to redistribute under 
CreativeCommons", they might think "huh, their hw is fine and selling. What 
for do they need any more docs?". And any judge might think the same.

jOERG