View Single Post
Old 02-02-04, 08:56 PM   #31
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 10

Originally posted by energyman76b

well, asume company A builds nics and lizences IP about this nics to other companys.

One of these companys could be nvidia. And because they lizenced it, they can not open it. Company A instead can do what they want, like open the specs for their cards and forbid it their licencees, or make it very expensive.
There are a lot of reasons to buy foreign ip, even for a nic, and a lot of madness out there.
Or they incorporated some foreign ip (without knowing it) and did not ask any owners?
It is not easy today to make anything without touching some ip/patents of somebody else so...
maybe nvidias laywers are the blocking part? Why risk some unpleasant and very expensive trouble, even if you are innocent , if all you need to protect yourself is not to open your driver sources&specs?

I do not believe that nvidia misbehaves in any point, this are pure examples, why a company could not whish to open their drivers. And there are a lot of more reasons outside.
If you are so great, why not try and get that job?
Then you will know, why nvidia can not open the sources.
Ok. That I think we all understand - if true, just say for arguments sake it is. Why does that stop them from releasing documentation of the low level graphics calls (no proprietry driver needed), so that developers such as DirectFB developers can progress thier software without the need to develop using trial and error methods. It's this lack of cooperation on behalf of the manufacturers that holds back Linux in the mainstream. Linux Console framebuffer drivers (say nvidiafb) seems to be an area nVidia are not interested in supporting! If that's the case, why not let a third party like DirectFB do the developing freely for them, surely that should benefit both nVidia and the linux community.

Is this really too much to ask, or am I being nieve, thick or to idealistic.
broose is offline