They are useless for most people who buy the processor, even transitively. For people who will get called out of it, it makes sense to let companies charge for that value.
>Documentation for a product should always be "free" when you buy that product.
I feel this viewpoint does not value the work it takes to compile all of this information. Nor does it acknowledge how full documentation could reveal sensitive information. There is no reason for consumers to need to know how microcode instructions work since they will never be able to properly sign a microcode update. People will always like getting valuable stuff for free so you can't justify something by looking at how happy people are by getting value for free.
This also gets into a potential slippery slope where things like schematics or repair information, or even source code is forced to be given away for free. Confidential IP is a common part of many businesses and offers a tangible competitive advantage.
>I don't respect the competitive advantage gained by withholding documentation. Was my meaning that unclear?
What I was implying is that by forcing people to give up their hard work for free you are calling their work worthless. Finding innovative ways to make a product better deserves to be rewarded.
>Because the way you're talking about this situation it sounds like you would also call that acceptable.
I do think it's acceptable. I also think it's acceptable for them to charge money to sell you a programmer to use with the chip too. I don't think they have to give you the physical hardware to flash it with every chip they send you.
I'm not at all calling it worthless. It's very valuable. But I think it's a value that every owner deserves access to. And for IP licensing? If it's mandatory companies will figure it out.
If your competitive advantage needs you to not even release documentation, does it really? Really? Well the societal benefits are more important, sorry.
And it's still not giving up work for free. It's telling companies to sell these two things together.
A physical programmer is different because those have a marginal cost.
They are useless for most people who buy the processor, even transitively. For people who will get called out of it, it makes sense to let companies charge for that value.
>Documentation for a product should always be "free" when you buy that product.
I feel this viewpoint does not value the work it takes to compile all of this information. Nor does it acknowledge how full documentation could reveal sensitive information. There is no reason for consumers to need to know how microcode instructions work since they will never be able to properly sign a microcode update. People will always like getting valuable stuff for free so you can't justify something by looking at how happy people are by getting value for free.
This also gets into a potential slippery slope where things like schematics or repair information, or even source code is forced to be given away for free. Confidential IP is a common part of many businesses and offers a tangible competitive advantage.
>I don't respect the competitive advantage gained by withholding documentation. Was my meaning that unclear?
What I was implying is that by forcing people to give up their hard work for free you are calling their work worthless. Finding innovative ways to make a product better deserves to be rewarded.
>Because the way you're talking about this situation it sounds like you would also call that acceptable.
I do think it's acceptable. I also think it's acceptable for them to charge money to sell you a programmer to use with the chip too. I don't think they have to give you the physical hardware to flash it with every chip they send you.