Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?

[Samuel Flory <sflory@rackable.com>]

jdow wrote:

>From: "Samuel Flory" <sflory@rackable.com>
>
>  
>
>>  I simply question the idea that someone would need or want to download 
>>the source, and compile it for the purposes of piracy.  The current 
>>state of things seems to indicate the absence of source doesn't prevent 
>>piracy.  I suspect that I can find a usable pirated copy of virtually 
>>any popular software on the net.  This because copy protection doesn't 
>>work against any intelligent and determined person.  It works against 
>>the really lazy, and stupid who wouldn't be able, or want to compile a 
>>program any way.
>>    
>>
>
>There is a logic fallacy here, Samuel. Absence of source not preventing
>theft has nothing to do with the level and kind of theft if the source
>is placed out there for competitors to steal.
>

  There is no logical fallacy as I was talking in terms of consumer 
level piracy.

> When the hardware playing
>field is more or less even and the OS playing field is more or less even
>the only particular value added for games or for small marketplace code
>comes from wringing superior performance out of the provided components.
>When I place a piece of software out for purchase that features a new
>innovation in the use of a given hardware platform my competitors look
>it over intently, "How'd she do that?" I am pretty sure they can figure
>it out quickly enough. But, I still have a 3 to 6 month lead time to pay
>for the roof over my head before the competitors are selling the same
>feature. If I give then my source code that lead time goes away and I
>am left flipping burgers to pay for a coding habit. 
>

  Don't get me wrong I understand this.  This is why I feel most games 
would tend toward an escrow license if they tended toward any sort of 
open license.  You could claim this as a trend by citing  Doom, and 
Quake.   Few games have a shelf life much beyond 6 months.

  That said I've never bought a game because it had a certain feature.  
(Other than the ability to pause and issue orders in RTS.)
 

>Trust me, it ain't
>going to go down that way. If a benefactor cares to pay for my
>innovations and release them with source immediately then I am willing
>to play the game. I am not after world domination. I just want to pay
>for my food and housing and some hobbies so that my life is worth
>living. I'm just not willing to give away what should be creating a
>life for me. That way of living is an exotic form of suicide. As a
>software consultant my income is getting paid for my work. If I release
>that code to the public immediately it is ready for release I don't
>have an income. Both my stomach and the IRS get disappointed. The
>latter I can happily deal with. The former is more bother than I can
>handle.
>  
>
  I think you are taking this discussion a bit more serious than me.  
I'm just theorizing where trends are (or could be) heading.  Of course 
my livelihood has always been dependent on selling hardware;-)

-- 
There is no such thing as obsolete hardware.
Merely hardware that other people don't want.
(The Second Rule of Hardware Acquisition)
Sam Flory  <sflory@rackable.com>