I didn't say "if the driver code got out". Nobody in their right mind wants NVIDIA to open source their driver, they simply want an open source NVIDIA driver. Which means we want the programming specifications for NVIDIA cards. How exactly does the programming specifications for a graphics card give you the "blueprints and detailed instructions" on how to make your own NVIDIA card? (You could also try to answer that question for the dreamland scenario of them making their own driver open source. I don't think it changes the outcome at all)
Notwithstanding the incredible amount of resources it would take to clone the card, and the fact that you'd be at least two product cycles behind once your clone reached the market... and that is, if you didn't get sued out of business for violating the NDA first.
FWIW, I agree. Its quite a different situation between a piece of software that you depend on to store your data or to get work done, and a piece of fluff for entertainment. On the former, you simply can't afford to have a vendor locking you in to incompatible network protocols, secret APIs, and undocumented file formats, and giving you no recourse but to upgrade when the software breaks. On the latter, who cares? If a game doesn't work, just play a different game. Or watch TV instead. It's all time-wasting anyway.
Of course I still encourage those folks who want to produce games in the free software spirit, but their work is not nearly as essential as free software for business processes.
Comparing a graphics vendor making programming information for their computer hardware available and an auto manufacturer giving away free cars has to be the worst analogy in the history of this site. How on earth are the two even remotely comparable?
What is your point? You're the one who asked if it was necessary to install development packages under Debian. I answered yes with a method to find out which ones you need.
But wait! You have access to all the source code! You can write your own All-in-Wonder drivers!! Isn't that great about Linux?
Yes, that is great. Unfortunately, you sort of need hardware documentation in order to write drivers that actually work. Can Linux really be blamed for the lack of vendor-provided hardware documentation today?
And why is that? Because of an arrogant presumption that you are returning it because you used it to make an illegal copy, as opposed to a disagreement with the EULA, system incompatibility, insurmountable bugs, copy protection that won't let you in, etc?
Open source software puts the lie to the theory that everything must be driven by the profit motive.
Free software _is_ driven by a profit motive. One form of profit is in having a better piece of software to use. Another potential profit is in intellectual fame and glory. And finally most fulltime FOSS developers are employed by companies who market distributions. Just because FOSS doesn't fit into your traditional view of how capitalism operates doesn't mean the fundamental economic principles of incentive and reward don't apply.
Yeah, and just wait till you start seeing Cops episodes funded by the networks showing PVR owners getting busted. Think that'll put a scare into anyone?
Microsoft (as well as any other corp out there) patents everything they can.
That's not true. Most non-software companies don't bother wasting the lawyer time and application fees necessary to get patents for ideas they will never pursue licensing for and will never be in a marketable product. It's just that in the world of software development, patents are a highly effective anticompetitive tool, and are thus worth far more to a company as a weapon against its competitors and customers than if they were used solely as a protective measure.
Fraunhofer's own business plan keeps them from "getting too greedy." Besides, the very fact that you'd consider a company's pursuit of profit through licensing of patented technology to be "getting too greedy" makes me laugh at you derisively. Ha-ha.
I'd have to conjecture that he meant it in the sense that Vorbis provides competition to MP3 to keep Fraunhofer on its toes and innovating if it expects to reap profits from MP3 licensing, as opposed to the "GREEDY EV1L CAPALITISM!!!@@" interpretation.
Why do I need a licence to install on more than one computer, if I already own the specific copy, and can use it as I see fit???
What gave you the right to make more than one copy and run them simultaneously? That's all default copyright law gives you license to do, besides use the original copy for any non-performance reason you see fit.
It was the first x86 chip with an instruction cache. This is significant not only because of the speed increase, but because the 486 was the first chip that unmodified 8086 software started having compatibility issues with. Frequently, the only solution was to disable the 8k internal cache, and I remember downloading several programs from a local BBS which managed to do just that in various ways.
The instruction cache is what makes a 40Mhz 386 (with a 8Mhz turbo toggle) the king of oldskool gaming. It just doesn't get any better compatibility-wise.
you may not distribute an application that links to a GPL library under the BSD license.
Wrong. You can distribute the source code of your application that links to a GPL library under any license you wish. What you cannot do is distribute a linked binary comprised of your software and a GPL library under any license but the GPL.
This is not true. If you take a piece of GPL code and modify it, all your modifications have to be GPL as well.
Bullshit. The GPL is a distribution license. You can reject it, and you still have every right to use the software for whatever purpose you want, including private modifications. When you choose to distribute the software after rejecting the GPL, you then have only the rights given to you under default copyright law, which is to make a single archival copy that is to be destroyed when ownership of the original copy is transferred. The GPL _does not_ apply to you until you distribute a copy or a derivative work of the software which was licensed under the GPL.
Yes, but the rest of your app is de facto GPL. As mentioned earlier, it doesn't mean you have to make it public, but it still has to be GPL.
Wrong. As long as you are not distributing the GPL code itself or a binary dynamically linked to a GPL library, you have no obligation under the GPL. By the way, there is no case law upholding the dynamic linking clause. To be safe, just distribute your source code (under whatever license you choose).
Since the GPL is all about distributing the source code along with the binaries, I don't really know how you could do that
It's easy to satisfy the GPL. Either you distribute the source of both your software (under the GPL) and the GPL software to the person who received a binary comprising both, or make a written offer encompassing that. The catch is that if a written offer is made, it must be valid for any third party, not just the person whom you distributed the binary to. But you do not have to disclose this written offer to anyone besides the recipient of the binary.
If you meant, how do you get away with proprietary software linked to a GPL library, then the answer is simple - don't distribute binaries, ever. Let the user download and compile/link the source.
Not only the video memory is typically mmap'd by drivers, but also the AGP aperture as well as MMIO register ranges and various other bits of option ROM. All of these contribute to the X server's memory usage appearing to be unusually high.
Slashdot Mirror
Notwithstanding the incredible amount of resources it would take to clone the card, and the fact that you'd be at least two product cycles behind once your clone reached the market... and that is, if you didn't get sued out of business for violating the NDA first.
Um, how exactly do you link into menu option 3, scroll down, select item 2, which redirects you to some other area of the site?
So get busy rebutting his examples if you expect your "different opinion" to be entertained.
Of course I still encourage those folks who want to produce games in the free software spirit, but their work is not nearly as essential as free software for business processes.
The instruction cache is what makes a 40Mhz 386 (with a 8Mhz turbo toggle) the king of oldskool gaming. It just doesn't get any better compatibility-wise.
If you meant, how do you get away with proprietary software linked to a GPL library, then the answer is simple - don't distribute binaries, ever. Let the user download and compile/link the source.