On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 18:00:45 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 03:03:30AM +0000, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote: >> Various parts of the upstream release are binary only and proprietary, >> therefore a binary "repackaging" of the NVidia self-extracting archive is >> a bit ethically "questionable", putting it mildly. Not that I'm judging >> other efforts (Axel), just stating that personally I wouldn't do it. In a >> perfect world, NVidia would officially release the full driver/glx SDK as >> GPL'd OSS, but I think we all know that's never going to happen. > > I do not understand the logic. Either one rejects nvidia's policy, > then you do not ship a src.rpm at all, or one lives with it and builds > the binaries as well. Redistributing proprietary binaries makes me nervous, that's all. The NVIDIA software license is full of ambiguity, which inclines me to not modify the upstream at all before release. You're right, maybe it is a big fuss about nothing, but I've got an ambiguous licence in one hand, and the principles of Fedora (and OSS in general) in the other. So, as you point out, why do I bother at all? Because despite the nature of closed source software, in this case it is something I need and use every day. >> The Livna source RPM contains the original upstream release intact, >> [...] > > Which is not different at ATrpms. Right, I just meant that source RPMs in general should (and in your case and ours do) contain a clean upstream release. >> Rebuilding only takes a few seconds, but if you really want a binary only >> solution then stick with Axel Thimm's binaries at: >> >> http://apt.physik.fu-berlin.de/fedora/1/en/i386/RPMS.at-testing/ >> >> (also in "at-bleeding") > > "binary only"? You imply you have access to nvidia's sources? I wish !!! No, I meant "if you don't want to rebuild src.rpms" > BTW that's the "wrong" URL, the correct one is > > http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/name/nvidia-graphics/ Thanks, I was just quoting from my apt sources list.
