[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Thursday 13 September 2007 11:19, Benjamin A'Lee wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 09:35:15AM +0100, Tom Potts wrote: > > On Thursday 13 September 2007 09:14, Rob Beard wrote: > > > Ben Goodger wrote: > > > > http://www.x.org/docs/AMD/ > > > > > > > > I am never going to buy NVIDIA again. > > > > Well, not until they release their specs also... > > > > I belive Novell are working with them on some drivers - they may not > > release the specs but I would imagine the drivers will be GPLed. > > I find it strange that they wont release the specs - once you've released > > a driver you've effectively given away the spec if in a slightly > > encrypted form. For those that will be termed the competition they'll > > have the technology to find the specs in a day or so of running a board > > on a test rig so I cant see the point myself. > > It depends how well the driver is written - it could be anywhere from > "slightly encrypted" to "complete and utter gibberish". Having the spec > available would make life a lot easier for any free software developers > working on the driver. But when it boils down to it at some point it has to move the data through the FGP or PCMCIA bus or whatever - watch that closely and you'll get some of the spec. Write gibberish code and you'll have a shit slow/buggy driver and your competition can still look at the interface. When I developed M$ code I could download a debug version of windows for developing/debugging drivers - not sure about now - and use it to pick apart just about anything. > > > You get Novell to sign an NDA and work with them on GLPed drivers without > > releasing the spec and you will probably get a couple of months of > > ripping people off before someone works out how to get the cheap version > > to work > > I thought that if something was written under an NDA it couldn't be GPL, > because releasing something under a free licence is, basically, > disclosure? Or am I missing something? The code can be under the GPL without implicitly/explicitly divulging the FULL spec. The company works with them to ensure that 'this' version doesn't include all the bells and whistles of the 'better' version (or hint at them) - GPL code written under a controlling NDA. The community can optimise the GPL stuff, the driver can use GPL code and the company gets to keep its 'commercial' secrets safe. To my mind a stupid way of going about things but drip feeding the customer along is not a new thing. Tom te tom te tom -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html