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

Randy.Dunlap
2003-01-03T15:54:32Z

On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Mike Galbraith wrote:

| At 08:06 PM 1/2/2003 -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
| >On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 10:32:30PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
| > > But we could make do with even less cooperation than that. If they
| > > just provide the necessary specs to a person who wants to extend the
| > > free drivers that exist, that would be sufficient.
| >
| >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?
| >
| >How dare they not give of the fruits of their labors for free.
|
| <yank>
| You're just saying that to justify your evil BK license ;-)
| </yank> (hey, somebody was _gonna_ do it)
|
| Seriously though, just what is it that graphic CPU makers are
| protecting? I can't imagine "how to program our spiffy CPU'" docs exposing
| anything important to their competition. Imagine Intel or AMD trying that
| tactic for _their_ next CPU. What makes graphics CPUs so special?

Imagine them doing that for their current CPU.
That's what Nvidia is doing, isn't it?

At a LinuxWorld panel 2-3 years ago, Nicholas Petreley (sp?) chaired a
group discussion about this. There were 2 competing sound chip
manufacturers represented, and they denied any interest in each other's
hardware.

However, if one of them was well-documented, then someone could
get info on their current product. Well, that _could_
be a bad thing for company #2 and put company #2 on a road that was one
generation later than the first company was now designing/building.
So in one scenario it could end up as a negative for the "copying"
company.

--
~Randy