| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Other points.Other points.Posted Apr 2, 2008 6:24 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)In reply to: Other points. by pizza Parent article: A creative example of the value of free drivers
It's certainly possible that Creative is under contractual obligation to not provide some of the features that were disabled, and could be legally liable to said third party.This way of shifting the blame is not very credible: if Creative is not able to negotiate with said third parties and end up with a good contract (one which actually lets its customers use its products) then it is a crappy company which doesn't care about its customers at all.
(Log in to post comments)
Negotiating a better contract? Posted Apr 4, 2008 0:14 UTC (Fri) by kevinbsmith (guest, #4778) [Link] Isn't the same argument used to explain why NVidia "can't" release source code to their drivers, even if they want(ed) to?
Negotiating a worse contract Posted Apr 4, 2008 6:27 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Yes, but you realize the difference. A company that licenses some code only for its release in binary form is not hurting its users. But a company that licenses code only for a specific version of the operating system is setting an expiry date on its drivers, and so effectively on the hardware as well. Or at least on a feature of the hardware.
|
|
||||||||||||