3 ms·

> The answer was as unhelpful as possible Uh I think I think that's way too mean to the email. From a random web form they got some technical information, a us

> The answer was as unhelpful as possible Uh I think I think that's way too mean to the email. From a random web form they got some technical information, a useful CC, and offer to have a call. Not bad at all! Also, my basic theory about hardware problems is that the problem is less that they won't share the docs, and more that even the internal docs suck. When you essentially co-evolve devices and software through many revisions of each over many years, it's easy to get a complete mess that nobody understands. (Of course, in this specific case, DisplayLink was new, so it's maybe less of a problem.)

saagarjha 10mo ago
I think they’re upset that the library was to be released under LGPL or whatever, even though they clearly went and read from it anyway when implementing their thing.
- kimixa 10mo ago
  It seems they're pretty directly admitting to referring to the LGPL library while implementing theirs under a different license. I wonder if they'll have no issues with people directly reading their code while happening to implement the same functionality with a closed license? Or a GPL-style one? I'm surprised they admitted to it - it's hardly "Clean Room"....
  - messe 10mo ago
    > I'm surprised they admitted to it - it's hardly "Clean Room".... "Clean Room" RE isn't always legally required.
    - kimixa 10mo ago
      Not in RE, maybe, but directly viewing source isn't RE either.
      - messe 10mo ago
        > but directly viewing source isn't RE either. I'd argue that it is. I'd also argue that directly viewing the source doesn't mean you can't write a non-infringing driver. Unless the source is owned by Oracle, in which case, my hourly rate goes up 100x.
      - t-3 10mo ago
        The source and the machine code generated from it are logically equivalent (hopefully). Legality and effort required may be a different matter, but from a common-sense point of view there's little difference.
  - aulin 10mo ago
    Seems to me the most expectations they had with the library was about the compression stuff and it did not include that. So in the end it was mostly rev eng. Also in this specific case you are using the library code as documentation about the hardware, the code itself has little value. I doubt it would configure as license violation.

saagarjha 10mo ago

I think they’re upset that the library was to be released under LGPL or whatever, even though they clearly went and read from it anyway when implementing their thing.

kimixa 10mo ago
It seems they're pretty directly admitting to referring to the LGPL library while implementing theirs under a different license. I wonder if they'll have no issues with people directly reading their code while happening to implement the same functionality with a closed license? Or a GPL-style one? I'm surprised they admitted to it - it's hardly "Clean Room"....
- messe 10mo ago
  > I'm surprised they admitted to it - it's hardly "Clean Room".... "Clean Room" RE isn't always legally required.
  - kimixa 10mo ago
    Not in RE, maybe, but directly viewing source isn't RE either.
    - messe 10mo ago
      > but directly viewing source isn't RE either. I'd argue that it is. I'd also argue that directly viewing the source doesn't mean you can't write a non-infringing driver. Unless the source is owned by Oracle, in which case, my hourly rate goes up 100x.
    - t-3 10mo ago
      The source and the machine code generated from it are logically equivalent (hopefully). Legality and effort required may be a different matter, but from a common-sense point of view there's little difference.
- aulin 10mo ago
  Seems to me the most expectations they had with the library was about the compression stuff and it did not include that. So in the end it was mostly rev eng. Also in this specific case you are using the library code as documentation about the hardware, the code itself has little value. I doubt it would configure as license violation.