For UDI at least it is not a problem. To quote from their rules.
"Participation in the specification process includes a number of OS
vendors and IHVs, and is open to new participants at any time."
"The specification is intended to be publicly available for
implementation by anyone, whether or not they are participants in the
working group.
The definition of any specification developed by the working group
will be placed in the public domain, not subject to copyright, patent
or any other intellectual property right, so that any party may
implement or utilize the specification. However, any party may
develop and assert intellectual property rights over a particular
implementation of the interface."
and later in the rules
"Participation is open to all interested parties, regardless of company
affiliation. Voting status is gained by attending three meetings within
a three month period (a new participant can vote at the third meeting).
A voting participant must attend no less than one of every three
scheduled meetings in order to maintain voting status."
So *if* Linus decides that UDI is to be supported, somebody can
represent Linux at UDI meetings and even vote. Even without attending
meetings, at least it is an open spec, unlike I2O.
Having said that, I'm firmly on the side that having hardware specs is
much, much better than binary drivers, no matter how portable they are.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/