[MPlayer-users] Re: Display card recommendations

[Steven Adeff]

Cool, I actually started relevant conversation on this...

I understand what Robert is saying, that there very well could be source that 
NVidia uses in their drivers that they shouldn't, and that is a concern. 
Though that never seems to be part of the arguement. The arguement always 
comes out as "they are anti-open source, open source drivers are always 
better and therefore all linux drivers should be open source"(though not 
actually quoted). While that's fine and well for low quality "official" 
drivers, NVidia manages to put out quality drivers for linux. I think we need 
to spend more of the time bashing NVidia on screaming at ATI and Matrox(as 
far as graphic cards manufacturers) for not having linux drivers of this 
quality(though ATI is working their way there, which isn't saying much when 
one looks at the quality of their windows drivers...).

Then we have to worry about protecting the IP owners of GPL style licensed 
code from having it stolen by company's in the manner of which you speak.



On Monday 16 September 2002 15:51, Robert R. Wal wrote:
> On 02.09.16 gabor pressed the following keys:
> > > > I haven't posted in a while, but this prompted me to. Arpi, I can
> > > > understand the desire for open source drivers, but in the competetive
> > > > world of video cards, you can't fault a company for desiring closed
> > > > drivers to protect their IP rights.
> > >
> > > What marketroid bs are you bubling about?
> > >
> > > Protect IP rights? I thought that NVdidia and the rest of the bunch are
> > > about selling the hardware.
> > >
> > > What you suggest is that if they published sourcecode for their drivers
> > > someone (presumably competition) would use those sources for their
> > > products to nvidia's disadvantage.
> >
> > someone told me somewhere that it's problematic to release the driver
> > source because it can contains algorithms that may be legally
> > problematic etc... and thatway for example ATI could sue NVIDIA about
> > some patent issues just to get time to do something, because for that
> > time NVIDIA would have to stop distributing their drivers etc....
>
> But not releasing source doesn't undo this ``crime''. So it is not the
> question of protecting company's IP. It is rather preventing IP owners
> from finding out about theft.
>
> I suspect that there are lots of patented algorithms, GPL licensed
> pieces in all those proprietary, binary only programs.
>
> Having some experience with work for software companies I'd say that IP
> theft and license violation are rule rather than exception in case of
> those businesses.
>
> Robert

-- 
Steven Adeff
ADEFFS at RPI.EDU
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
AOLIM:"IndieRockSteve"

Those who can think, do; those who cannot, dress funny.

"Bodies are for hookers and fat people" - Bender

You can teach the ignorant, with the stupid there is no hope.

"You see, eventually your music will help put an end to war 
and poverty, it will align the planets and bring them into 
universal harmony, allowing meaningful contact with all 
forms of life."
-Bill 'n' Teds Excellent Adventure