| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Quote of the weekQuote of the weekPosted Oct 27, 2005 19:42 UTC (Thu) by AJWM (guest, #15888)In reply to: Quote of the week by yodermk Parent article: Quote of the week
I don't think it locks out the non-Free drivers -- a user still has every right to download a closed module from Nvidia or ATI and install it himself. The restriction is on what can be distributed along with GPL software.
Of course, if the technical restrictions are significant, AND if they are deemed to constitute a "technical protection measure" within the meaning of the DMCA, then closed-driver vendors may choose not to produce same.
(If it isn't a DMCA protection measure, there's nothing to prevent a company from working around technical restrictions -- nothing in the GPL prevents a user from combining GPL'd code with non-GPL'd modules, so long as he doesn't distribute the result.)
(Log in to post comments)
Quote of the week Posted Oct 27, 2005 19:55 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is the bigger issue I think.The good news is that the timing is probably right... there are lots of good 3d titles becoming available on the platform, Wine and Cedega are making the Windows-only titles playable, and so the market share of Linux gamers is growing. I'm personally running a 7800GT PCI-E on my Linux-only desktop, and I'm pleased. I've beaten Half-Life 2, and played a good deal of UT2004, Quake 4 and Doom 3. If either NVIDIA or ATI can be forward thinking enough to GPL a driver, I think the other will shortly be forced to follow suit when within a few generations the entire Linux gamer market segment flocks to the competition.
Quote of the week Posted Nov 4, 2005 11:13 UTC (Fri) by daenzer (✭ supporter ✭, #7050) [Link] > If either NVIDIA or ATI can be forward thinking enough to GPL a driver,> I think the other will shortly be forced to follow suit when within a few > generations the entire Linux gamer market segment flocks to the > competition.
While I wish it wasn't, I'm afraid this is wishful thinking. Not too long ago, ATI provided not only docs and code but even money and engineer time in support of fully free drivers for their then-current cards. That didn't prevent the masses from moving to nVidia's proprietary drivers. Apparently, most of the people who buy graphics cards couldn't care less about free drivers. As long as that's the case, there's little incentive for the vendors to supply them.
Quote of the week Posted Nov 9, 2005 0:01 UTC (Wed) by alex (subscriber, #1355) [Link] Cool. Where are the r300 chipset docs?
Quote of the week Posted May 16, 2006 2:54 UTC (Tue) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] These guys might know.
Quote of the week Posted May 16, 2006 2:44 UTC (Tue) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] I think, machiavellian as it may sound, this is actually where license enforcement making it a *PITA* to rely on blobware can be a practical advantage.
There are a lot of these people that can't, or won't look beyond the tip of their nose. They're happy to give up their freedom - when it's easy. Make it a PITA, and they'll suddenly have a whole newfound appreciation for the difference between supported hardware and hardware that might work if you use the right blob.
ATI is still benefitting from their past support. People that want 3d hardware accelleration without blobware generally grab Radeons still, as a result of it. There are still plenty on the market using the supported chipsets, and while they aren't as fast as the blobware only models, they're cheap and often faster than the Intel/Via/S3/Matrox options.
I hope ATI realises why the demand for these old cards is still strong...
|
|
||||||||||||