On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 17:09:53 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > 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. However "2.1.2 Linux Exception" and "2.1.3 Limitations" of "LICENSE" seem to be contradictory. Section 2.1.2 is not clear enough, although the README does clarify the point, that point should be moved (and expanded) in to the actual License. Legal and contractual exceptions are always difficult areas, but NVIDIA are being unnecessarily vague. Anyway, I'm sure neither you nor I want to waste our time debating commercial licenses. I'm tempted to just say "to hell with it", take the most liberal interpretation of NVIDIA's word, and just repackage their driver in any arbitrary way I see fit. > 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'd be very surprised if both ATI and NVIDIA hadn't already "debugged" each others drivers. In fact I seem to recall an infamous revelation (was it last year?) where both ATI and NVIDIA were caught red-handed cheating in benchmarks in a manner which suggested they both had "intimate" knowledge of each other's code. - K.
