On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 19:25 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > Andy Green wrote: > > >>> On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 10:44:57PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > >>>>> If they were willing to have hidden code they're legally unable to > >>>>> modify. > >>>> Or if they cared about their user experience... > >>> Okay, look -- you've been around long enough that you know what Fedora is > >>> about and why it is the way it is. Quit trolling. > >> I'll quit when others quit insisting that source code availability to > >> device drivers that are maintained by the device vendor is necessary. > > > > "necessary" for what though. It really is necessary for it to get > > redistributed with Fedora, not just the source either but acceptably > > Open licensing for it. > > Yes, fedora is not the best choice for an OS in this situation. > > > > > If you already had a driver in the Xorg tree and Fedora, there are no > > technical reasons pushing you to change to the nVidia binary-only model: > > it's more painful and less efficient for everybody, even nVidia. So > > people are quite right to complain -- at nVidia. > > Why should they complain at nVidia for for something that is due to > Linux and fedora policies? ---- hmmm... first Intel open sourced their video drivers - if the earlier thread is to be believed, ATI will follow...seems as though there might be some pressure on nVidia to open things up themselves. Perhaps there's a GPL victory to be had on the horizon after all. -- Craig White <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
