From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 03:01:49 -0400
From: geoff@x.bell-labs.com geoff@x.bell-labs.com
Subject: [9fans] hardware documentation (was Plan 9 future)
Topicbox-Message-UUID: aae31310-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025
Message-ID: <20000513070149.QaIYK4RhQH1uXzLf9upe3b5YpsGn265Guc6VDU0UiDA@z>

Mr. Choat wrote:
> Exactly, the reason it was 'open' then was there was no real competition.

No, hardware documentation was `open' because there was competition
among peripherals vendors and good documentation was a competitive
advantage (there's no need to reveal all details of a controller's
implementation, merely the interface to it and enough
theory-of-operation to drive it).

> The licensing agreements were still there. If you don't believe it then
> try to explain the comments on pp. xi or the back cover of,
> Lion's Commentary on Unix, 6th ed.

These comments all refer to software (Unix) licences; they have
nothing to do with (non-existent) hardware documentation licences nor
fees for same.  I wrote Unix device drivers before working for Bell
Labs.  I don't recall ever encountering (or even hearing from others
about) licence fees for hardware documentation.  Perhaps when hardware
documentation got scarce later, somebody took a bribe for providing it
illicitly and called the bribe a `licence fee'?  :-)