| 1 |
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 07:32:23 -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > That leaves Nvidia two choices, distribute closed source drivers for |
| 4 |
> > Linux, or remove that code from the Linux drivers |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> ...or both (release a "free" version and a "full" version), or release |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
They'd probably argue that would be extra work. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> specs so we can write our own drivers (we don't need to know anything |
| 11 |
> patentable or even trade-secret-able, just how to talk to the hardware) |
| 12 |
> or a half-dozen other options. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Haven't they done that already? It's just that this doesn't work with |
| 15 |
3D, which is tied into the proprietary code. Without knowing the details, |
| 16 |
which would require an NDA and then not being able to discuss this, |
| 17 |
there's no way of knowing how closely the 3D stuff is tied into the |
| 18 |
proprietary code. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> There's no duality here, just nvidious |
| 21 |
> deciding to only provide shackles (free of charge, woohoo!) and |
| 22 |
> "everyone" deciding to put them on. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I must admit, I don't feel shackled. I know that the code is non-free (as |
| 25 |
in OSS, although it is freely distributable) and made my choice to use |
| 26 |
it. The key is that I have the choice, and as long as I do, I'm still |
| 27 |
free. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> NB: I use the nvidia driver; I don't like it, but I do use it since I |
| 30 |
> do occationally play games that require accelerated 3d. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
So use a different make of card that provides equivalent performance with |
| 33 |
a free driver. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Stop tagline theft! Copyright your tagline (c) |
Archives