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

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

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 267 bytes --]

If i was a "bully" I would be getting what I want... Could this be corporate manipulation, now I know how apple feels.

Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...

On 	Tue, 31 Dec 2002 11:11:18 -0800 	David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3147 bytes --]

From: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
To: <davidsen@tmr.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 11:11:18 -0800
Message-ID: <20021231191120.AAA19490@shell.webmaster.com@whenever>


On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 10:03:14 -0500 (EST), Bill Davidsen wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, David Schwartz wrote:

>>II don't expect anyone to GPL unless they think they get more benefit 
>>from
>>GPLing than the potential harm done. People GPL code because they want to
>>'donate' it to improve the open source movement, community, and code base.
>>Attempting to arm twist such donations is worse than foolish. You think the
>>open source community should be a bunch of bullies? Convince people open
>>source is best, and avoid them if they don't agree.

>Certainly anyone who has had a problem, posted an oops, and been told that
>no one will even look at a dump from a system with the nvidia driver might
>think they were being bullied...

	There's a difference between people thinking they are being bullied and 
being a bunch of bullies. ;)

	I would hope that the situation would be explained politely -- kind of like 
this:  "Unfortunately, with closed-source software, only someone who has the 
source code can debug it. If you can replicate the problem without any 
closed-source drivers, we'll do our best to help you. But if you can only 
replicate the problem with a closed-source module installed, odds are the 
problem is in that module, and even if it wasn't, we couldn't track it down."

	That doesn't really seem like bullying and helps to clarify the 
disadvantages of using closed-source software.

	DS


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 424 bytes --]

read up on why the GPL exists, its not to protect a billion dollar company, its to protect honest contributors from having their work stolen by big buisness like just what happened when Nvidia used various GPLd HEADER FILES IN ITS MODULES AND KEPT SOURCE CLOSED. by "DEAD HORSE".

Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...

On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 23:48:44 -0500 Ed Sweetman <ed.sweetman@wmich.edu> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 5704 bytes --]

From: Ed Sweetman <ed.sweetman@wmich.edu>
To: A Guy Called Tyketto <tyketto@wizard.com>
Cc: Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 23:48:44 -0500
Message-ID: <3E12732C.3080009@wmich.edu>

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 03:13:00AM +0000, Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote:
> 
>>no Nvidias drivers arent like coal because coal is useful for fires, what 
>>happens when Nvidia decide those cards are too old? But just new enough 
>>to not show the competition their code, Nvidia are a drain on the community 
>>with nothing useful to show for it.
>>
>>Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
>>
> 
> 
>         Then why complain about it? Don't buy NVidia cards! if you don't like 
> what they're doing with the code and the drivers, don't buy or use their 
> product. Simple as that. There's always ATI, SiS, and many other cards with 
> fully GPL coded drivers for it. Just because one may think that NVidia is the 
> best card out on the market, doesn't mean (unfortunately) they have to 
> accomodate every OS that uses it, and do it the same way that every other 
> company does. You have a choice, but also, so do they.
> 
>         I have an SiS 315E card in my box, and it works great, and haven't 
> looked at any other card since installing it.
> 
>                                                         BL.
Note: "you" is everyone complaining about nvidia not gpl'ing their drivers.

Gotta agree with that.  You get along much better in life not believing 
you deserve this and that. Nobody owes you driver support because they 
make hardware. And bullying companies to do so makes you no better than 
they are when they bully other companies out of business, buy them out 
and use their advanced ideas in their crappy products.


Apparently nvidia is the graphics leader because people dont know how to 
  write accelerated graphics code for nvidia chipsets. And apparently it 
has little to do with engineering the card and chips and manufacturing 
those pieces and assembling them.  And apparently they're better 
protected by software laws from someone stealing their hard work and 
making products without having to spend R&D on it than laws on copying 
various hardware patents and such.

going to a company and telling them they have to agree with your beliefs 
is a quick way to get absolutely nothing.  Nvidia has survived before 
linux became the big deal on wallstreet and news. They can survive quite 
  well with windows users alone.  They dont need linux user support.  So 
how is trying to boycott nvidia products up in anger and sending angry 
emails going to help you get what you want? You dont have the market 
power needed to make that work. It just makes companies see linux as a 
bunch of spoiled brats complaining when they dont get what they want and 
throwing a tantrum.

We allow certain binary-only modules in the linux kernel.  That has been 
  long established and it's the end of the story.  This is brought up 
like every year and it ends the same way. You dont like what nvidia does 
then dont buy their stuff, but going around and trying to tell other 
people to do so is counterproductive and foolish. We dont have the 
leverage and pretending you do makes every step closer we were to 
gaining support inside nvidia turn into a step backwards.  Why should 
they give their drivers away gpl?  What is the gain in that? Show them 
the gain and hope they come around.

What are their motives in not going gpl? has anyone asked them that? 
People assume it's out of security for their product but there is no 
precident for them to be worried about that and it sounds silly.

If you are bothered by the license the drivers you use are under then 
why did you buy nvidia in the first place?  I always buy my hardware 
based on linux support.  If i had hardware that wasn't well supported or 
needed special binary modules i'd trade it with a friend or sell it on 
ebay and get something that didn't.  With a new nvidia card you cant go 
saying you're too poor to get anything else.  So you get a piece of 
hardware that you know is not supported by gpl drivers well and then 
complain about it?

There is always the old way of reverse engineering the hardware and 
continuing the gpl nvidia driver support.  It's much harder but it's 
still done. The need for gpl support must not be that high to get people 
motivated to dive into that mess yet so I dont see much motivation on 
nvidia's side to change how they do things.

ok. dead horse 0   people 1.  no doubt a rematch will proceed.

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

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 245 bytes --]

AND NOBODY HAS TO BEG ANYTHING FROM NVIDIA, OR GAIN THEIR SUPPORT, not for their price, the GPLs SOUL PURPOSE.

Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...

On 	Wed, 1 Jan 2003 05:01:12 +0000 	<Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 7841 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 424 bytes --]

read up on why the GPL exists, its not to protect a billion dollar company, its to protect honest contributors from having their work stolen by big buisness like just what happened when Nvidia used various GPLd HEADER FILES IN ITS MODULES AND KEPT SOURCE CLOSED. by "DEAD HORSE".

Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...

On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 23:48:44 -0500 Ed Sweetman <ed.sweetman@wmich.edu> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2.1.2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 5704 bytes --]

From: Ed Sweetman <ed.sweetman@wmich.edu>
To: A Guy Called Tyketto <tyketto@wizard.com>
Cc: Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 23:48:44 -0500
Message-ID: <3E12732C.3080009@wmich.edu>

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 03:13:00AM +0000, Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote:
> 
>>no Nvidias drivers arent like coal because coal is useful for fires, what 
>>happens when Nvidia decide those cards are too old? But just new enough 
>>to not show the competition their code, Nvidia are a drain on the community 
>>with nothing useful to show for it.
>>
>>Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
>>
> 
> 
>         Then why complain about it? Don't buy NVidia cards! if you don't like 
> what they're doing with the code and the drivers, don't buy or use their 
> product. Simple as that. There's always ATI, SiS, and many other cards with 
> fully GPL coded drivers for it. Just because one may think that NVidia is the 
> best card out on the market, doesn't mean (unfortunately) they have to 
> accomodate every OS that uses it, and do it the same way that every other 
> company does. You have a choice, but also, so do they.
> 
>         I have an SiS 315E card in my box, and it works great, and haven't 
> looked at any other card since installing it.
> 
>                                                         BL.
Note: "you" is everyone complaining about nvidia not gpl'ing their drivers.

Gotta agree with that.  You get along much better in life not believing 
you deserve this and that. Nobody owes you driver support because they 
make hardware. And bullying companies to do so makes you no better than 
they are when they bully other companies out of business, buy them out 
and use their advanced ideas in their crappy products.


Apparently nvidia is the graphics leader because people dont know how to 
  write accelerated graphics code for nvidia chipsets. And apparently it 
has little to do with engineering the card and chips and manufacturing 
those pieces and assembling them.  And apparently they're better 
protected by software laws from someone stealing their hard work and 
making products without having to spend R&D on it than laws on copying 
various hardware patents and such.

going to a company and telling them they have to agree with your beliefs 
is a quick way to get absolutely nothing.  Nvidia has survived before 
linux became the big deal on wallstreet and news. They can survive quite 
  well with windows users alone.  They dont need linux user support.  So 
how is trying to boycott nvidia products up in anger and sending angry 
emails going to help you get what you want? You dont have the market 
power needed to make that work. It just makes companies see linux as a 
bunch of spoiled brats complaining when they dont get what they want and 
throwing a tantrum.

We allow certain binary-only modules in the linux kernel.  That has been 
  long established and it's the end of the story.  This is brought up 
like every year and it ends the same way. You dont like what nvidia does 
then dont buy their stuff, but going around and trying to tell other 
people to do so is counterproductive and foolish. We dont have the 
leverage and pretending you do makes every step closer we were to 
gaining support inside nvidia turn into a step backwards.  Why should 
they give their drivers away gpl?  What is the gain in that? Show them 
the gain and hope they come around.

What are their motives in not going gpl? has anyone asked them that? 
People assume it's out of security for their product but there is no 
precident for them to be worried about that and it sounds silly.

If you are bothered by the license the drivers you use are under then 
why did you buy nvidia in the first place?  I always buy my hardware 
based on linux support.  If i had hardware that wasn't well supported or 
needed special binary modules i'd trade it with a friend or sell it on 
ebay and get something that didn't.  With a new nvidia card you cant go 
saying you're too poor to get anything else.  So you get a piece of 
hardware that you know is not supported by gpl drivers well and then 
complain about it?

There is always the old way of reverse engineering the hardware and 
continuing the gpl nvidia driver support.  It's much harder but it's 
still done. The need for gpl support must not be that high to get people 
motivated to dive into that mess yet so I dont see much motivation on 
nvidia's side to change how they do things.

ok. dead horse 0   people 1.  no doubt a rematch will proceed.

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

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 393 bytes --]

It matters not whether it was gave or taken, GPL=GPL either way, I shall contact MR. Stallman, as and when I get some legal advice, I AM DEFENDING THE GPL, YOU ARE BULLYING, SUBVERTING AND TWISTING THE GPL. I am a staunch advocate of the FSF.

Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...

On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 21:15:18 -0800 A Guy Called Tyketto <tyketto@wizard.com> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2117 bytes --]

From: A Guy Called Tyketto <tyketto@wizard.com>
To: Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 21:15:18 -0800
Message-ID: <20030101051518.GB8365@wizard.com>

On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 05:08:36AM +0000, Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote:
> AND NOBODY HAS TO BEG ANYTHING FROM NVIDIA, OR GAIN THEIR SUPPORT, not for their price, the GPLs SOUL PURPOSE.
> 
> Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...

        One other thing. No-one GAVE NVidia GPL'd material. It's available for 
them to use it, just like it is for us. If you have a problem with that, you 
may want to take it up with GNU, the FSF, and RMS, if you want to deal with 
all the slack. But that's your fight, not ours.

                                                        BL.
-- 
Brad Littlejohn                         | Email:        tyketto@wizard.com
Unix Systems Administrator,             |           tyketto@ozemail.com.au
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :)   |   http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
  PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569  F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

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

[David Lang]

It's obvious that you are not going to listen to anyone who disagrees with
you so would you please stop filling our mailboxes?

This is not a new discussion. In past discussions it has been decided that
just including header files is not enough to make something a derived
work. you don't agree with that so you are going to go make a pest of
yourself. spare us the further e-mail.

Linus made a statement in the last couple of months about binary-only
modules for the kernel. please go read that before you go further.

David Lang

On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote:

> Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 05:51:28 +0000
> From: Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net
> To: davids@webmaster.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rms@gnu.org
> Subject: RE:Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source
>     drivers?
>
> You must understand the GNU/LINUX community is being manipulated by NVidia.
>
> Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
>
> On 	Mon, 30 Dec 2002 22:55:35 -0800 	David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
>
>

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

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 224 bytes --]

You must understand the GNU/LINUX community is being manipulated by NVidia.

Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...

On 	Mon, 30 Dec 2002 22:55:35 -0800 	David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3376 bytes --]

From: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
To: <Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <rms@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 22:55:35 -0800
Message-ID: <20021231065537.AAA8309@shell.webmaster.com@whenever>


On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 03:57:06 +0000, Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote:

	To respond first to your subject, GPL'd code is given to everyone to do what 
they wish with, subject to certain very specific and narrow limitations.

>Why does the community continue to make pacts with a company that steals
>from its rivals, makes pacts with M$, and refuses to clearly GPL and open
>source its work on drivers,

	What type of "pact" are you talking about?

>there is a clear difference between their use of
>GPL files, and what the GPL says they can do.

	I presume you're talking about the inclusion of GPL'd header files into 
non-GPL'd code that is then distributed without source code? IMO, if the 
header file only includes things like structs and thin macros, that's 
insufficient to consider the compilation a derived work.

	You are welcome to argue for stronger and stronger copyright law enforcement 
and narrower and narrower constructions of fair use and first sale doctrines. 
However, IMO, it would be the stupidest possible thing the open source 
community could ever do.

>You cannot expect embedded
>kernel developers to GPL, if you excuse Nvidia, its a vain hope to grab M$
>users, but in the long run it destroys the community.

	I don't expect anyone to GPL unless they think they get more benefit from 
GPLing than the potential harm done. People GPL code because they want to 
'donate' it to improve the open source movement, community, and code base. 
Attempting to arm twist such donations is worse than foolish. You think the 
open source community should be a bunch of bullies? Convince people open 
source is best, and avoid them if they don't agree.

	DS


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 05:30:18AM +0000, Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote:
> They are stealing by changing GPL files, and not giving the source, its 

        And just how the smeg do you KNOW they're CHANGING these files, aye? 
Do you have some super secret K-9 nose that the rest of us don't, and can 
tell? Have you reverse engineered the binary to see? Please, enlighten us.

not for personal use so they are DISTRIBUTING it, and INCLUDING IT. 

        This does not make sense. You're saying they're changing GPL'd files, 
though they can use them any way they choose, as long as they notify the 
original author of the changes they made. Whether they redistribute the CODE, 
is up to them. They chose not to. As long as they have notified those who 
wrote the headers, no GPL violation has been made.

BUT they dont give out their DERIVED source. 

        Once again, there is no clause in the GPL that states they MUST give 
out the code. All they need to do is notify the author. Also, They MUST give 
out the code, if they've MODIFIED the headers. You'd be stewing and eating 
your boots for dinner if NVidia released the code, and you found no headers to 
be modified. their code, they can do anything they want. But for the headers, 
all they'd need to do for changing their code, is to keep a current version of 
the headers from the kernel, and program their C code to their content. Once 
again, No. GPL. Violation.
 
I work with C everyday and when you put in a header file you are including it,
all kernel headers are GPL. I read the license 4 times a day and have 
since 1995.

        And we don't deal with C at all. The kernel is programmed in COBOL, 
ADA, Modula-2, Mumps, and Pick. Hell, I just might port it part of it over to 
Logo. Oh damn.. Apple will sue me for that.. Let's port it to C! I'll learn 
it, with my trusty Visual C, and Borland C compilers! </sarcasm>

                                                        BL.
-- 
Brad Littlejohn                         | Email:        tyketto@wizard.com
Unix Systems Administrator,             |           tyketto@ozemail.com.au
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :)   |   http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
  PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569  F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

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

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 05:45:06AM +0000, Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote:
> It matters not whether it was gave or taken, GPL=GPL either way, I shall contact MR. Stallman, as and when I get some legal advice, I AM DEFENDING THE GPL, YOU ARE BULLYING, SUBVERTING AND TWISTING THE GPL. I am a staunch advocate of the FSF.
> 

        Good luck! Tell RMS he still owes me dinner, and be sure to bring a 
video camera along with you! You just might win $10,000 for it, on America's 
Funniest Home Videos! ;)

                                                        BL.
-- 
Brad Littlejohn                         | Email:        tyketto@wizard.com
Unix Systems Administrator,             |           tyketto@ozemail.com.au
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :)   |   http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
  PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569  F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

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

[Andre Hedrick]

Hell.Surfers,

On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote:

> You must understand the GNU/LINUX community is being manipulated by NVidia.

   NVIDIA Corporate Office:
   2701 San Tomas Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA 95050
   Tel: 408-486-2000
   Fax: 408-486-2200
   info@nvidia.com
   Directions to Corporate Office

> Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...

GO FOR IT!

I will love to see the fall out.

Regards,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

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

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 226 bytes --]

NVidia would not go under, but if they did, you would still have drivers for it.

Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...

On 	Wed, 01 Jan 2003 11:13:28 -0500 	Mark Rutherford <mark@justirc.net> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3220 bytes --]

From: Mark Rutherford <mark@justirc.net>
To: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 11:13:28 -0500
Message-ID: <3E1313A8.18854119@justirc.net>

OK....
I have a suggestion..
We all concede (with the exception of a few) that Nvidia did nothing wrong with
including headers in their driver.
I dont think they did...
I use their product, and it works well for me.
I would LOVE to see Nvidia open source, but that might just drive a nail in the
right place for them.. and they go under.
We cannot force our ideas on a company, all they will do is turn and walk away.
We can show them our way, if they like it, good. if not, we tried.
I think we have tried, and I think Nvidia is well aware of our way here.
Now, on to the suggestion!

lets let this thread die. its been argued before, over and over.
please?





Andre Hedrick wrote:

> Hell.Surfers,
>
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote:
>
> > You must understand the GNU/LINUX community is being manipulated by NVidia.
>
>    NVIDIA Corporate Office:
>    2701 San Tomas Expressway
>    Santa Clara, CA 95050
>    Tel: 408-486-2000
>    Fax: 408-486-2200
>    info@nvidia.com
>    Directions to Corporate Office
>
> > Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
>
> GO FOR IT!
>
> I will love to see the fall out.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andre Hedrick
> LAD Storage Consulting Group
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

--
Regards,
Mark Rutherford
mark@justirc.net




-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 350 bytes --]

The NVidia driver is derivative, a lot of people put trust in the GPL and I am one, im currently picking a solicitor, NVidia will either win or lose, if I lose, M$ win  may soon be a lot like Linux.

Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...

On 	Wed, 1 Jan 2003 17:37:36 -0800 	Bill Huey (Hui) <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 4398 bytes --]

From: Bill Huey (Hui) <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org>
To: Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>, Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rms@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 17:37:36 -0800
Message-ID: <20030102013736.GA2708@gnuppy.monkey.org>

On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 12:31:13AM +0000, Paul Jakma wrote:
> The NVidia shim makes use of several kernel subsystems, the PCI
> device layer, the VM, the module system (well really, the kernel
> makes of use of the functions the module provides :) ), IRQ
> subsystem, the VFS, etc.. These systems are rather large bodies of
> code - without which the NVidia kernel driver could not work.

Well, no, look at the "nm" dump of the object file. It's got a lot of
proprietary code that came from what looks like commerical libraries
that they don't own. Back when they wrote the original drive, the GPL
equivalents of DRM, AGP, etc... sucked so they had to write their own
stuff just to get anything basic working.

> driver is not a derivative work, and hence it seems to me the NVidia 
> driver is technically in material breach of GPL.

Their portability layer wraps the low level calls into their own
terminology and portability API. It's fairly outside of the linux kernel
itself, internally the object file looks very Win32ish.

Obviously a GPL rewrite of this would entail a lot of replicated effort
and would also depend on things that are incomplete, non-existent and
don't have a lot direct interest from the GPL community. 3D isn't a hot
commodity in Linux, FreeBSD unlike with dedicated SGI machines (although
faded).

It's a very practical solution to do it this way.

> So I am not quite sure on what basis one could argue the NVidia 
> 
> You seem to be basing your opinion on:
> 
>  "the nvidia driver uses only the standard interfaces to hook into
>  the Linux kernel"
> 
> How are the standard interfaces not covered by the GPL? 

All I saw where kernel header files include in the sources, nothing
more. They have to support multipule architecture and OSes so keeping
this stuff outside of the driver is a good thing. The GPL-ly stuff is
publically available as source files.
 
> I know Linus' has often posted to l-k that he doesnt care about
> binary only modules as long as they stick to the exported interfaces.  
> However, are all the kernel developers agreed on this? And if so, can
> this exception be formalised and put into the COPYING file? If not, 
> then is NVidia not in breach of the kernel's licence?

I'd rather have the experts do it at NVidia, than a half completed open
source implementation that isn't terribly optimized.

Matrix multiplies, T&L, etc... communication between user and kernel
space that provides this to the OpenGL libraries are all exotic. I'm glad
that nobody has to deal with this stuff directly and that a vendor is
willing to provide support for it.

bill

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 219 bytes --]

"or later" perhaps copyright could be defined, and headers added to derivative?

Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...

On 02 Jan 2003 01:57:01 +0000 Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1667 bytes --]

From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>, Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, rms@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?
Date: 02 Jan 2003 01:57:01 +0000
Message-ID: <1041472621.22606.4.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk>

On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 00:31, Paul Jakma wrote:
> So I am not quite sure on what basis one could argue the NVidia 
> driver is not a derivative work, and hence it seems to me the NVidia 
> driver is technically in material breach of GPL.

I would assume Nvidia's view is based on US caselaw on what constitutes
a 'derived work'. The boundaries of copyright are not set by the GPL
authors

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

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 226 bytes --]

no winmodem equivalent. Ive backwards enginneered one of those...:-)

Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].

On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 21:58:59 -0800 Bill Huey (Hui) <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 4102 bytes --]

From: Bill Huey (Hui) <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org>
To: Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>, Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rms@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 21:58:59 -0800
Message-ID: <20030102055859.GA3991@gnuppy.monkey.org>

On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 02:57:48AM +0000, Paul Jakma wrote:
> yes, but the legalities of it are rather grey.

It didn't seem that bad to me, it was all pretty abstracted outside of
their code. The glue layer to their object file is GPLed and therefore
public so that should be fine from what I can see.

> indeed, and if that were the only issue it would be clear there is no 
> issue. however, it must make use of linux code at runtime through 
> function calls - as linux makes use of the NVidia proprietary code by 
> calling the functions it provides.

Like what ? PCI IO poking functions ? Things that do mmap() trickery ?
That's pretty freaking basic. There wasn't anything terribly invasive
about the driver and source that I saw.

> Sometimes one has a choice between drivers written by the vendor and
> drivers written by (non-expert???) "community" authors, and often one
> finds the vendor driver is the one that isn't terribly optimised.

But this is computationally critical 3D. I mean, what kind of 3D vendor
would intentionally let something like that slide on x86 platforms ?

> > Matrix multiplies, T&L, etc...
> 
> none of this stuff is done in kernel (least it shouldnt be). Its done 
> in user-space libraries.

That stuff is done in hardware these days, not software. I mean, how would
anybody know what they're using. Why replicate that volume of functionality
when it already works well.

It simply doesn't make sense. I'm sure when decent AGP/DRM support is in
place they can start removing that stuff out of the Linux binary and
then make more of that publically available.

There motivations where to simply protect themselve by not releasing
proprietary code.

> The XFree licence allows binary only modules, indeed XFree 4 was 
> designed to make distribution of (possibly binary) modules as easy as 
> possible.
> 
> There isnt that much magic the NVidia kernel modules ought to be 
> doing really.

Notification of event completion from the (just guessing) who knows what
opcode operations the chip is doing, fast draw context switching, who knows.
These things are starting to look like FPU coprocessors, circa 1990, these
days.

Different hardware has differing needs. If it's pretty freaking exotic, then
let it to those folks handle it and the glue layer to userspace. It's not
like folks in GPL community write entire 3D frameworks for this casually.

High performance 3D is a Linux priority at this time. No real games or
heavy 3D apps that use crazy chips stuff...

> > communication between user and kernel space that provides this to
> > the OpenGL libraries are all exotic. I'm glad that nobody has to
> > deal with this stuff directly and that a vendor is willing to
> > provide support for it.
> 
> aha.. yes, all that complicated hardware stuff - you dont really want 
> those linux kernel amatuers writing that.

Well, having a generic kernel person, regardless of who they are, messing
with 3d chips and interfacing it with their OpenGL libs isn't a light topic.
This crap is heavy. So yes, its a good thing they've done this. What the
hell do you think this is ? an Ethernet driver ?

bill

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

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 215 bytes --]

if libc used compatible headers, they would be derivative....

Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].

On 	Thu, 2 Jan 2003 01:29:59 +0000 (GMT) 	Paul Jakma <paulj@alphyra.ie> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2597 bytes --]

From: Paul Jakma <paulj@alphyra.ie>
To: David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com>
Cc: Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>, Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>, <Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <rms@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 01:29:59 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0301020126060.30005-100000@dunlop.admin.ie.alphyra.com>

On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, David Lang wrote:

> well libc uses the kernel headers and basicly all userspace programs
> use libc so that makes oracle a derivitive work of the kernel??????

libc neednt neccessarily use the kernel headers, it needs to use only 
headers that are compatible. Also, though it might use kernel headers, 
the headers it provides for other programmes to be compiled against it 
are not kernel headers.

further, the kernel's licence explicitely exempts the 'normal system 
calls', and kernel headers describing these can quite arguably be 
considered to fall within this exemption.

> luckly that's not how things actually work.

unfortunately, its not at all clear.

> David Lang

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	Sys Admin	Alphyra
	paulj@alphyra.ie
Warning: /never/ send email to spam@dishone.st or trap@dishone.st

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 179 bytes --]

in a way, yes.

Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].

On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 17:08:26 -0800 (PST) David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 4183 bytes --]

From: David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com>
To: Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>, Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net,  linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rms@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 17:08:26 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0301011706400.21656-100000@dlang.diginsite.com>

well libc uses the kernel headers and basicly all userspace programs use
libc so that makes oracle a derivitive work of the kernel??????

luckly that's not how things actually work.

David Lang

On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Paul Jakma wrote:

> Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 00:31:13 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>
> To: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
> Cc: Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rms@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source
>     drivers?
>
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > Copyright law is pretty explicit about the situations the GPL
> > applies to.  If something can be reasonably considered to be a
> > "derivative work" of a GPL work, the GPL applies and the new work
> > needs to be GPL.
>
> and:
>
> > but only a song.  If nvidia's driver only uses some simple
> > declarations from include files and no large (>7 lines? >10lines?
> > what's large?) inline functions AND the nvidia driver uses only the
> > standard interfaces to hook into the Linux kernel, then it's not a
> > derivative work and nvidia gets to choose the license.
>
> It has long been held that linking to GPL code is suffient to
> consitute 'derived work' status, hence the existence of the LGPL.
>
> The NVidia shim makes use of several kernel subsystems, the PCI
> device layer, the VM, the module system (well really, the kernel
> makes of use of the functions the module provides :) ), IRQ
> subsystem, the VFS, etc.. These systems are rather large bodies of
> code - without which the NVidia kernel driver could not work.
>
> So I am not quite sure on what basis one could argue the NVidia
> driver is not a derivative work, and hence it seems to me the NVidia
> driver is technically in material breach of GPL.
>
> You seem to be basing your opinion on:
>
>  "the nvidia driver uses only the standard interfaces to hook into
>  the Linux kernel"
>
> How are the standard interfaces not covered by the GPL?
>
> I know Linus' has often posted to l-k that he doesnt care about
> binary only modules as long as they stick to the exported interfaces.
> However, are all the kernel developers agreed on this? And if so, can
> this exception be formalised and put into the COPYING file? If not,
> then is NVidia not in breach of the kernel's licence?
>
> > Rik
>
> regards,
> --
> Paul Jakma	paul@clubi.ie	paul@jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
> 	warning: do not ever send email to spam@dishone.st
> Fortune:
> Programmers do it bit by bit.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

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

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 275 bytes --]

linus cant alter the GPL, which is gooooood :-), he cant change the license at all... Imagine the people that would sue :-).

Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].

On 	Thu, 2 Jan 2003 00:31:13 +0000 (GMT) 	Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3891 bytes --]

From: Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
Cc: Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <rms@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 00:31:13 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0301012356270.8691-100000@fogarty.jakma.org>

On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Rik van Riel wrote:

> Copyright law is pretty explicit about the situations the GPL
> applies to.  If something can be reasonably considered to be a
> "derivative work" of a GPL work, the GPL applies and the new work
> needs to be GPL.

and:

> but only a song.  If nvidia's driver only uses some simple
> declarations from include files and no large (>7 lines? >10lines?
> what's large?) inline functions AND the nvidia driver uses only the
> standard interfaces to hook into the Linux kernel, then it's not a
> derivative work and nvidia gets to choose the license.

It has long been held that linking to GPL code is suffient to 
consitute 'derived work' status, hence the existence of the LGPL.

The NVidia shim makes use of several kernel subsystems, the PCI
device layer, the VM, the module system (well really, the kernel
makes of use of the functions the module provides :) ), IRQ
subsystem, the VFS, etc.. These systems are rather large bodies of
code - without which the NVidia kernel driver could not work.

So I am not quite sure on what basis one could argue the NVidia 
driver is not a derivative work, and hence it seems to me the NVidia 
driver is technically in material breach of GPL.

You seem to be basing your opinion on:

 "the nvidia driver uses only the standard interfaces to hook into
 the Linux kernel"

How are the standard interfaces not covered by the GPL? 

I know Linus' has often posted to l-k that he doesnt care about
binary only modules as long as they stick to the exported interfaces.  
However, are all the kernel developers agreed on this? And if so, can
this exception be formalised and put into the COPYING file? If not, 
then is NVidia not in breach of the kernel's licence?

> Rik

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	paul@clubi.ie	paul@jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
	warning: do not ever send email to spam@dishone.st
Fortune:
Programmers do it bit by bit.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 480 bytes --]

unfortuanately it requires patches, doesnt have a clear license, has bad coding style, the docs suck, im stuck to my eyeballs in cirrus code, and well, its not very clean, requires two input layer hacks, im writing docs that dont get completed cause the api, well, it sucks, aside from that, ive got a nice ggi acorn emulator...

Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].

On 	Thu, 2 Jan 2003 10:57:54 +0100 (CET) 	Jos Hulzink <josh@stack.nl> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3400 bytes --]

From: Jos Hulzink <josh@stack.nl>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
Cc: Mark Rutherford <mark@justirc.net>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 10:57:54 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <20030102104612.V63864-100000@toad.stack.nl>

On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Rik van Riel wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Mark Rutherford wrote:
>
> > I would LOVE to see Nvidia open source,
> > We cannot force our ideas on a company, all they will do is turn and walk away.
> > We can show them our way, if they like it, good. if not, we tried.
>
> Nvidia is a smart company, otherwise they wouldn't be in
> business today.  I'm sure they'll switch to the GPL only
> once it will be in their advantage to do so and no sooner.
>
> When would it be an advantage for them ?
>
> The moment there is a GPL graphics library (at the right
> system level, of course) that's so good Nvidia won't be
> able to resist using that library could be such a moment.
>
> A new project for Hell.Surfers ? ;)

Mr Surfers has already showed up at the KGI development team, but as I
think his attitude doesn't quite fit in the team, I have not encouraged
him to help.

But yes, there is a GPL graphics kernel module / library (KGI & GGI) that
should run on linux and any BSD real soon now. The Radeon and Matrox
drivers are in place, already. The 3D accelleration framework is in place,
but the GGI GL implementation is not yet existing.

For those who want to take a look: the website (www.kgi-project.org) is
outdated, we lost contact with the maintainer :( Please take a look at the
kgi-wip project at sourceforge (CVS only) and at irc.openprojects.net #kgi

Jos

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

[Rik van Riel]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote:

> "or later" perhaps copyright could be defined, and headers added to
> derivative?

Luckily copyright holders cannot define the scope of copyright
law.  This doesn't just include the (often illegal) EULAs of
proprietary software companies, but also the very strict
interpretation "some people" have of the GPL.

Both proprietary EULAs and the GPL have to work within the law
and cannot add anything illegal under the law.

Rik
-- 
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/		http://guru.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap:  <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a>

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

[NEURONET]

> im currently picking a solicitor, NVidia will either win or lose, if I lose, M$ win  > may soon be a lot like Linux.

If you lose, you also create a precedent case 
what REALLY offensive cases could make use of
in the future.

(I'd advise re-reading Antigone from Sophokles
before starting your Holy Battle...)

Sab

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

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 181 bytes --]

AMEN BROTHER. SING IT.

Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].

On 	Sat, 4 Jan 2003 23:06:51 +0100 	Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 5246 bytes --]

From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Larry McVoy <lm@work.bitmover.com>, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>, mark@mark.mielke.cc, billh@gnuppy.monkey.org, paul@clubi.ie, riel@conectiva.com.br, Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net
Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 23:06:51 +0100
Message-ID: <20030104220651.GA30907@merlin.emma.line.org>

On Thu, 02 Jan 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:

> Yeah, if only the company that has invested millions in trying to scratch
> out a place to stand, if only they would give us their intellectual
> property for free, if only, why then we could steal that IP and give it
> to other people.  And it would take us less time to do it if they would
> only cooperate.  Why won't they cooperate?

Keeping "intellectual property" to oneself is NOT what has made mankind
leave the trees and build up civilization, medical care and all that
stuff. Community is the cause, some people specialized in hunting or
agriculture, some in building houses, whatever.

I understand many existences currently depend on holding back
information (be that publishers of scientific journals, be that
entertainment; movies), and a lot of restructuring would be necessary if
"intellectual property" was no longer protected. Maybe it takes one won GPL
infringement law suit or two with adequate compensation paid to the
plaintiff that companies get trust into GPL. It might not work for
BitKeeper because that stuff needs too little support because it's too
good (the old "hey, why are you installing inferior software at
your clients' sites?" -- "to sell support afterwards") or something. ;-)

Seriously: would NVIDIA really lose if they open sourced the drivers?

It's their hardware that really bangs and that carries the bucks into
their house. If someone is to reverse engineer what they're doing, they
can also reverse engineer the driver first and then the chip.

Of course, opensourcing means you can't cheat by just disabling
functions in software and you won't get away too long with cheating
benchmarks. Maybe people get the idea that cooperation is nicer than
competition unless it leads to a monopoly that's exploited.

> Give it up, Stallman, we live in a capitalistic world.  The Russians
> tried communism and it didn't work.  It won't work here either, the
> kernel folks aren't that stupid.  Some people actually do learn from
> history.

And globalization + capitalism makes it that eventually only a monopoly
remains. Look at the oil market, look at Microsoft, look at the car
market or even food or pharmacy. Mergers everywhere, leading to layoffs,
raised gains, less competition. Ooops.

It's useful to have people around that think in other directions, they
make up for innovation. Linux is an offspring of such people's thoughts.

And from what is to be heard about ATI, the Macrovision stuff for the TV
outputs is one of the major reasons they are holding back source code.
Now assume it's true and think about the driver situation again. The
movie companies prevent you from improving ATI's TV output, ultimately.

This is exaggerated, but it might help stepping back and looking at the
WHOLE system.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 304 bytes --]

NO NO NO, IT WAS LITTLE GREEN MEN WHO ARE CALLED JEBEDIAHS [/SARCASM] can we stop that suspicious "everyones manipulating NVidia" theory please, my possible pending legal action depends on facts not hear say.

-- DM.

On 	Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:46:28 -0600 	Jesse Pollard <pollard@admin.navo.hpc.mil> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 4129 bytes --]

From: Jesse Pollard <pollard@admin.navo.hpc.mil>
To: markh@compro.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:46:28 -0600
Message-ID: <200301080946.28103.pollard@admin.navo.hpc.mil>

On Wednesday 08 January 2003 09:46 am, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 January 2003 06:28 am, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> > > Helge Hafting wrote:
> > > > Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 10:08:00 +0100, Helge Hafting
> >
> > <helgehaf@aitel.hist.no>  said:
> > > > > > loss.  Giving away driver code (or at least programming specs)
> > > > > > wouldn't be a loss to nvidia though - because users would still
> > > > > > need to buy those cards.
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be a major loss to nvidia *AND* its customers if it were
> > > > > bankrupted in a lawsuit because it open-sourced code or specs that
> > > > > contained intellectual property that belonged to somebody else.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps their driver contains some IP.  But I seriously doubt the
> > > > programming specs for their chips contains such secrets.  It is
> > > > not as if we need the entire chip layout - it is basically
> > > > things like:
> > > >
> > > > "To achieve effect X, write command code 0x3477 into register 5
> > > > and the new coordinates into registers 75-78.  Then wait 2.03ms
> > > > before attempting to access the chip again..."
> > > >
> > > > Something is very wrong if they _can't_ release that sort of
> > > > information.
> > > > Several other manufacturers have no problem with this.
> > >
> > > Aren't nvidias' chipsets really owned by SGI. It think there is some
> > > deal nvidia has with SGI that prohibits nvidia from opening up their
> > > driver and chip set info. It's looking like SGI might be gone soon.
> > > Maybe if they disappear, nvidia can do what they want???
> >
> > Think they sold it to Microsoft....
>
> I think what they sold to MS was some part of "OPENGL" software not
> anything hardware
> related.

That part I'm sure of. But part of what was sold is the interface to the 
"OPENGL" software, and that is part of what is implemented by the
nvidia chips. So, by a tenuous extension, the chips interface may be
owned by M$.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil

Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/