Subject: Re: Unsuccessful attempt on 1.2 beta scratch-installation
To: None <port-arm32@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Robert Black <r.black@IC.AC.UK>
List: port-arm32
Date: 08/15/1996 13:50:46
On Aug 14,  3:08pm, Markus Baeurle wrote:
> Subject: Re: Unsuccessful attempt on 1.2 beta scratch-installation
> In message <199608122040.WAA01162@ra.pvv.ntnu.no> you wrote:
>
> > Maybe I can look at that source too?
>
> No, because the code for the Cumana SCSI II card is under NDA (non-disclosure
> agreement).
> I have written to Manar about the state of this NDA (ie if they insist on it,
> might redraw it or whatever), I hope he will answer. Maybe someone else from
> the kernel team can clarify this if Manar's too busy to answer and somebody
> else knows.

All I'm going to say right now is that we're working on it. Our original plan
was to get the driver finished and then get them to vet the source code to make
sure we weren't giving anything too much away.

> If there's the slighest chance we might achieve something, I think all us
> Cumana users should write to Cumana and ask them to redraw the NDA. We can
also
> consider to write one letter "signed" by all its supporters. (The credibility
> of such an EMail might be a problem and a signed letter would be too much
> hassle.)
> Not only does it make development harder, it also always makes a big hassle
to
> get a new object file whenever a kernel structure changes.
> And there's no good reason for the NDA anymore because there are SCSI cards
> available today which have faster drivers (eg. the MCS Connect 32, which has
at
> least a different vendor name in the UK).

This is true, but when the NDA was drawn up was over a year ago... I'd hold off
on the mailbombs for the moment though :-)

Cheers

Rob

--