Shared publicly  - 
Congratulations to #ARM  on today's announcement of the Server Base System Architecture (SBSA):

You'll see me quoted in some related press over the coming hours. This is the beginning of a standardization journey and we have been diligently addressing compatibility issues ahead of time for the past few years. When you buy a 64-bit ARM server later this year, it will be standardized, will support a standardized platform, will run standardized Operating System software, and will just work. Sorry other architectures, you'll have to find somewhere else to attack.
Vladimir Pantelic's profile photoJon Masters's profile photoJan Lübbe's profile photoYuhong Bao's profile photo
This is the beginning of the journey. Expect to see more in the coming weeks and months, especially around boot architecture.
WARNING to all and any Linux developers. Have a lawyer read the license before you click through. Among other things, it includes the following text:

"5. You agree that You shall not use the SERVER BASE SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE SPECIFICATION other than pursuant to and in accordance with the exercise of any of the licences granted under this LICENCE. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, You shall not use the SERVER BASE SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE SPECIFICATION; [...] (ii) for developing technology or products which avoid any of the ARM Intellectual Property licensed hereunder; [...] (iv) for generating data for publication or disclosure to third parties, which compares the performance or functionality of the SERVER BASE SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE SPECIFICATION with any other products created by You or a third party, without obtaining ARMs prior written consent."

In other words, if you hope to develop or even discuss something that is not exactly what the license says (i.e. compare ACPI to device-tree), don't download it.

Well played, ARM, well played.

[Edited to add section iv and clarify on ACPI vs device-tree]
I'm again amazed by the disconnect between hiding specs behind a license like this and talking about "close collaboration with the open source community" at the same time...
Before rampant speculation takes over, consider how this stuff gets done. ARM legal attached a click through and chose the wording. I will ping them and ask about this.
+Jon Masters So if the people at ARM which know how this should work are not even consulted on the terms under which the specs are accessible, then how am I to believe that they are heard on the actual technical issues?
Besides this, it seems from the news articles that it actually specifies the HW standards to use (AHCI, EHCI, ...) rather than the firmware. So maybe it's not all bad. ;) 
Reminds me of anti reverse engineering terms in MS EULAs.
Add a comment...