1. It all starts on:
STEP 1: Review the NVIDIA Software License. You will need to accept this license prior to downloading any files.
So I am forced to agree with something even before I download it and try it. No Free Software license will force you to agree with something before trying it out.
Undesirable conditions on a license is a valid reason to prefer Open Source, and one with which I agree. Caveat: when trying to keep a secret, the *only* legal way of which I am aware to impose that secrecy by contract is before the other party has possession of the information. So, given that they are trying to keep things closed, this is a necessary thing from their point of view.
I realize that you disagree with their intent to keep that secret, and that you find the license disagreeable, and I partly agree. My disagreement is strong enough to make me want to prefer, support, and improve alternatives that do not have these conditions where possible, convenient, and not too expensive, but does not go as far as to cause me to quit using their product; yours does.
Both are valid points of view. I do not consider that in any case this can be construed as "treating me like a criminal" and "cheating me". It is merely providing a product or service under strict conditions, with which you or I may or may not agree.
2. Then on the preamble of the license:
By downloading, installing, copying, or otherwise using the SOFTWARE, you agree to be bound by the terms of this LICENSE. If you do not agree to the terms of this LICENSE, do not download the SOFTWARE.
Another thing unknown in the Free world: I'm not bound to a license to use software...
Again a valid reason to prefer Open Source, again not something that bothers me hugely right now, again not "treating me like a criminal" et al.
3. Then the recitals start by using a threatning memorandum:
The SOFTWARE is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties, as well as other intellectual property laws and treaties. The SOFTWARE is not sold, and instead is only licensed for use, strictly in accordance with this document.
Again they are trying to keep a secret. If they sell it to me, it is easier for me to go against their wishes for the software, so they license it in the hopes of legally restricting my freedom to do things with this software. This may be reason enough to switch to another product for many users, but hey... I see no "like a criminal" threat here. They wrote it or acquired it, and they release it under certain terms. Buy their stuff or not... free market. But no horrible behavior that I can see.
Conclusion: they dare define the purposes I might want to run the drivers for.
Yes, I see that. They are working on the traditional paradigm of software authoring, which you and I both agree is not ideal and which is outclassed by Open Source. But they are entirely within the legal, ethical, and moral grounds established by the free market of goods and services. So right now, you choose not to use their products. I choose to help other products evolve to the point where they can supplant these, but not switch yet. Where's the problem?
4. In 1.1: Customer 5. 2.1.1 forbids me from downloading (* yes, true! *) 6. 2.1.2 Linux Exception, explicitly tells you that you have ONE freedom if you use the drivers _with_Linux_, to distribute copies. 7. No Reverse Engineering. 8. It goes on...
I'll skip the rest of the analysis here. The point is you find their license and way of doing business distasteful enough to immediately cease any use of their products. Fine. I do not feel the same way. Also fine. I believe that at no point have you justified your claim that, by using their products, I "accept their treating me like a criminal." Even if I were to go out and do everything they forbade, at worst we have a breach-of-contract issue and they can sue me, and I can countersue and fight it just like any other contract. There is no criminality, real or implied, anywhere in here.
If you did, did you comply with this paragraph? Or are you now a criminal for helping a friend?
Again, no criminality implied or explicit. You may be in breach of contract, and you may therefore be obliged to comply with the license or risk a lawsuit. Leaving aside the point that the risk is actually negligible, philosophically the point is that, while you may find the contract with which they license the software horrible, it is indeed legal and viable and you should read and understand *any* contract you accept.
Use it or drop it... but the Greek lament you raised about cheating, and treating their customers like criminals, and forcing outrageous conditions? Drama. Just drama. Or hey, maybe I'm wrong, maybe you actually believe that they (and nearly every other software manufacturer out there) really is treating you like a criminal. If so, I do not claim to understand your radical view of contract law; but I can tell you that, at least in the wonderfully-horrible litigious orgy that is the United States (what I see as the worst case), reality is much less grim than what you portray.
Then it gives you no warranties, offers no responsability or liability for problems (imagine if in certain conditions you got a total filesystem corruption and lost something important...).
Please, show me any application that *does* take responsibility or liability for any of those things!
I don't consider it idiocy. You DO CLAIM to use the driver for the 3D support, right? That's what the allegory of "bright colours" refers to.
No, I don't. I said I got their driver after the nv module X gave me was unable to go beyond 800x600@60Hz resolution without massive noise on the screen which made the display practically unusable. I got their driver and was able to move immediately to the 1600x1200@75Hz resolution I wanted. I could care less about 3D.
Cheers,
-- Rodolfo J. Paiz rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.simpaticus.com
