Why are crypto/smartcard ICs (for example ATECC608) always so poorly documented / NDA-walled? The software/networking space is very open (TLS, IPSec, etc) and use of a proprietary cipher vs something like AES is massively frowned upon. So why is sec-by-obscurity OK in HW??
Ironic.
This is literally the definition by the people who came up with the term "open source" in early 1998 because they felt that "free software" was ill defined (different people had different opinions on what it means).
-
-
Most OSS licenses aren't really opensource by that strict definition. People use code generators, companies obscure registers, comments not meant for public consumption get redacted. It's a worthy ideal but not always feasible in practice. Which is why so many OSS licenses exist.
-
This particular bit has nothing to do with the license. Idk what's so hard to understand here.. You can release whatever you want under any license you want. Just don't call it open source if the thing you release isn't the actual source code, even if released under OSI license.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That's just my opinion on the matter... I realize it's a hot button for some (GPL is particularly devisive), and in an ideal world everything would be fully open... but short of being pedantic and avoiding all technology that isn't ideally open we do what we can to forge ahead.
-
Sure, you can make up your own definitions for what words mean. But don't be surprised if people get frustrated when communicating with you. The 2nd part of your tweet is a strawmen and has nothing to do with the things I've said.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.