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

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

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 412 bytes --]

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...

On 	Tue, 31 Dec 2002 12:05:35 -0500 	"Scott Robert Ladd" <scott@coyotegulch.com> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3487 bytes --]

From: "Scott Robert Ladd" <scott@coyotegulch.com>
To: "Paul Jakma" <paulj@alphyra.ie>, "Mark Rutherford" <mark@justirc.net>
Cc: <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 12:05:35 -0500
Message-ID: <FKEAJLBKJCGBDJJIPJLJAEPFDOAA.scott@coyotegulch.com>

Paul Jakma wrote
> "what you get for christmas?"
>
> "a lump of coal"
>
> at least you get /something/. however, you didnt get what counts,
> programming info for the card.

I, and many other Linux users, do not consider nVidia's drivers to be "a
lump of coal." What "counts" is being able to use my hardware effectively.
Closed-source drivers may not be ideal, but few things in life are.

Even the conservative Debian distribution (which I use) has the nVidia
drivers available in the distribution.

In order of preference (for me):

1) High-quality drivers with open source
2) High-quality drivers with closed source
3) Poor-quality drivers with open source
4) Poor-quality drivers with closed source

Out of four possibilities, we're getting the next-to-best thing. Certainly,
I'd *like* to have the specs for nVidia's cards -- but given competition
between nVidia and ATI, I don't see that happening. One advantage nVidia has
(small as it may be) is high-quality drivers for Linux; it's one reason my
Linux systems have TNT2 and GeForce 4 cards installed.

Note that my Windows boxes run ATI cards; I'm not an nVidia shill.

One of Linux's historical weaknesses (when compared to the competition) is
video support. While I urge nVidia to open their specifications (and in the
end think it would be in their best interest), I'm also very pleased that
they provide high-performance drivers for free (as in beer).

...Scott

--
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Professional programming for science and engineering;
Interesting and unusual bits of very free code.

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

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

[Erik Andersen]

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, 

Nvidia cards are also quite useful for fires.  Just take 
off the heat sink.  ;-)

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen             http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--

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

[Ed Sweetman]

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.

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

[J Sloan]

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

>
>        I have an SiS 315E card in my box, and it works great, and haven't 
>looked at any other card since installing it.
>  
>
Yeah but I can play quake 3 arena, unreal tournament,
and return to castle wolfenstein with my nvidia card,
and you can't do that with your sis card.

Good binary 3D drivers are way better than no 3D
drivers -

A microsoft-free 3D fps addict,

Joe

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

[Milosz Tanski]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 588 bytes --]

There is (was) an effort for opensource 3d drivers (including nvidia
ones), infact i rember they got quake II and III working in 32bit color
mode, if i rember correctly. If you go grieff, then go visit
http://utah-glx.sourceforge.net/ and help out. Make the drivers better
then the nvidia ones (ya right!) so they will be forced to use your code
on other paltforms (and then nvidia would be forced to use it, and thus
open up their code). I'll see you in two years, when you fully complete
the drivers? Ok, bye. 

P.S: I think the code there is under a BSD (BSDish, MITish licence,
...).

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

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

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 207 bytes --]

Sounds better... But still incorrectly licensed.

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

On 	Thu, 2 Jan 2003 01:34:05 -0500 	Milosz Tanski <mtanski@wideopenwest.com> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2780 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 589 bytes --]

There is (was) an effort for opensource 3d drivers (including nvidia
ones), infact i rember they got quake II and III working in 32bit color
mode, if i rember correctly. If you go grieff, then go visit
http://utah-glx.sourceforge.net/ and help out. Make the drivers better
then the nvidia ones (ya right!) so they will be forced to use your code
on other paltforms (and then nvidia would be forced to use it, and thus
open up their code). I'll see you in two years, when you fully complete
the drivers? Ok, bye. 

P.S: I think the code there is under a BSD (BSDish, MITish licence,
....).

[-- Attachment #2.1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

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

[Milosz Tanski]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 315 bytes --]

Before jumping to conclusions, go check out the site, read the licences
etc. If i rember correctly some modules are under a BSD like licence
(correct me if i'm wrong). I don't think the utah-glx folk are using the
kernel (kernel modules), but i haven't looked close enouth at it (and
dosn't seam like you did too).

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

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

[Paul Jakma]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Milosz Tanski wrote:

> be forced to use it, and thus open up their code). I'll see you in
> two years, when you fully complete the drivers? Ok, bye.

NVidia would not release the neccessary specs to the project to allow 
them to write acceptable drivers. That is why they are so lacking - 
but its amazing they even got that far.

> P.S: I think the code there is under a BSD (BSDish, MITish licence,
> ...).

XFree licence, yes. Which allows binary only modules.

regards
-- 
Paul Jakma	paul@clubi.ie	paul@jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
	warning: do not ever send email to spam@dishone.st
Fortune:
The best things in life go on sale sooner or later.

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

[Alan Cox]

On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 06:34, Milosz Tanski wrote:
> There is (was) an effort for opensource 3d drivers (including nvidia
> ones), infact i rember they got quake II and III working in 32bit color
> mode, if i rember correctly. If you go grieff, then go visit
> http://utah-glx.sourceforge.net/ and help out. Make the drivers better
> then the nvidia ones (ya right!) so they will be forced to use your code
> on other paltforms (and then nvidia would be forced to use it, and thus
> open up their code). I'll see you in two years, when you fully complete
> the drivers? Ok, bye. 
> 
> P.S: I think the code there is under a BSD (BSDish, MITish licence,

Utah-GLX supports the older Nvidia cards, and works in XFree86 4.2 at
least - although since its based on an older Mesa not all stuff works
well with it.

Alan