[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: nvidia

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Ed Greshko wrote:
>> Frank Cox wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 21:29:09 -0500
>>> Les Mikesell <lesmikesell gmail com> wrote:
>>>> Except that the people providing the binary do have a reason to care
>>>> if it works.
>>> Until they decide that it's time to sell you another card and
>>> discontinue their
>>> binary blob for the model that you already have.
>> You mean like when a developer of an opensource project decides he
>> doesn't
>> want or can't continue to support the project and it closes down for
>> lack of
>> others picking up the mantle?
> The difference is that, there is a opportunity for others to get
> involved which is not the case for non-free software. Most popular Free
> software projects frequently are supported by multiple groups even
> commercially and when one goes away, another steps up to fill in the gap
> as it has happened quite often and there is also the possibility that
> you hire others or get in-house people to maintain it. non-free software
> does give that level of control to end users.

That is a "difference" but one has to understand that first, the nvidia
drivers are free...just not open and second, there is a corporation behind
the nvidia drivers and it is certainly possible that the corporation values
its reputation.

In both commercial and opensource software there are no guarantees that a
particular piece of software will be supported or continue to be developed.

> This is apart from the legal issues involved in combining non-free
> modules and the Linux kernel for a distribution.

I must have missed that part of the discussion.  I didn't notice it was part
of the discussion that nvidia drivers or ATI drivers be made part of a distro.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]