[amluto]

If I were Allwinner, I'd be quite nervous about open-sourcing my code. Who knows what patents it infringes?

[ktta]

I think you've put forward an important point many don't consider when debating why companies won't open source.

[joezydeco]

We have a winner!

[squarefoot]

This is why the recent proposal by Bunnie of trading transparency against liability would be so important.

[ZenoArrow]

Patents for what? Algorithms? I've heard similar arguments/excuses made before, I'd like to understand if there's any legal precedence for them, or if it's more of a hypothetical risk.

Lastly, with the 'supply of documentation' approach, does this (to your knowledge) carry the same legal risks?

[joezydeco]

The API would expose what IP cores are inside the GPU.

A competitor could easily dissect the code and figure out what blocks and/or techniques are violating their patent rights.

[ZenoArrow]

> "The API would expose what IP cores are inside the GPU."

How would an open-source driver developed by a third party be less effective at doing so?

[joezydeco]

The third-party is probing into a black box. They have no idea what is or isn't there. So it could be plausible deniability on the side of the chipmaker.

[ZenoArrow]

How about documentation then? Let's say Allwinner releases C header files, plus high level descriptions of what each function does. Do they still maintain plausible deniability if the hardware design infringes on patents?