On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 03:58:40AM +0000, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote: > 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. That's from nvidia's README: > Q: Why does NVIDIA not provide rpms anymore? > > A: Not every Linux distribution uses rpm, and NVIDIA wanted a single > solution that would work across all Linux distributions. As > indicated in the NVIDIA Software License, Linux distributions are > welcome to repackage and redistribute the NVIDIA Linux driver in > whatever package format they wish. On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 03:58:40AM +0000, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote: > 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. I think the license as quoted above is non-ambigous, but definitely not within Fedora's definition of content. > 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. Hopefully OSS GL/DRI support will improve, but currently most performant drivers are closed source :( As if the competition wouldn't be able to disassemble. I guess at one moment in time some vendor will start releasing (good) OSS drivers and the others will follow. OSS is after all a spreading disease ;) -- Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgpkc5qPjpkYq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
