Open letter to nVidia: Please open source the legacy nVidia video drivers
From: | "Floris Kraak" <randakar-AT-gmail.com> | |
To: | "Ken Brown" <kebrown-AT-nvidia.com>, "Derek Perez" <dperez-AT-nvidia.com>, "Andrew Fear" <afear-AT-nvidia.com> | |
Subject: | Open letter to nVidia: Please open source the legacy nVidia video drivers | |
Date: | Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:18:02 +0200 | |
Cc: | letters-AT-lwn.net, editors-AT-linuxtoday.com |
Greetings, The issue I am about to discuss has been talked about before. The linux community has asked nVidia for open source video drivers in the past and most likely will again. nVidia so far has consistently said 'no', citing various reasons*. It is my belief many of those reasons are invalid when it comes to drivers for cards older than two years**. The so called 'legacy' drivers. Allow me go through the arguments one by one. 1) 'the graphics market is hotly competitive .. [we] want to maintain the proprietary, trade-secret nature of [the drivers] as long as possible' (ATI quote) This argument does not apply for legacy drivers. If you still have a trade secret in a graphics card driver two years after it's released the competition is simply not doing it's job. So far the evidence suggests otherwise. 2) 'It's so hard to write a graphics driver that open-sourcing it would not help' (quoting Andrew Fear) That statement is just not true - neither the linux nor the X community can be accused of not writing high quality, highly complex software. It can be said*** that the reverse is true - it is so hard to write a graphics driver that keeping it closed will hurt. It is certainly not true for legacy drivers, where the development effort largely consists of keeping them working as new kernel versions appear. This effort would be considerably easier if these drivers were to be part of the mainline linux kernel. 3) 'customers aren't asking for open-source drivers' I'm a customer. I'm asking. With me there are tens of thousands of linux enthousiasts who are asking. In fact large government institutions such as the Department of Defense**** are asking too. Given the current growth figures for Linux, Firefox and other open source software I think it's safe to say pressure from real customers will only grow with time*****. 4) Third-party intellectual property. This may be the only reason I cannot argue against, simply because I cannot argue against something if I don't know details about it. All I can say is that nVidia appears to have stated in the past that this was not a major obstacle. Even if it is an obstacle for some parts of the code then nVidia may still be in a position to release partial drivers, old libraries or even specs for the older cards. Having countered the arguments against opening up legacy drivers I want to make a case in favor of it. There are several reasons why nVidia would benefit from opening up their legacy drivers. a) Costs. It can easily be argued that opening up the legacy drivers will shift some of the maintenance burden of those drivers to the Linux community, freeing up development resources inside the company. b) PR. nVidia will be lauded for doing the right thing, for showing vision. It would probably be hailed as a victory for the open source community and as such generate a fair amount of positive press. c) Higher quality drivers. The open source community has long maintained free software is higher quality software. Undoubtedly the peer review process that is part of the linux development model will help improve the drivers. Finally, I call upon nVidia to put it's money where it's mouth is. Andrew Fear said****** "We believe in open source where it makes sense". It makes sense here. I call upon nVidia to follow up on that statement. *) A short list of them, and some debuking can be found here: http://lwn.net/Articles/180633/ **) Needless to say I am in support of Open Sourcing the graphics drivers of all major players entirely. But I am not making an argument for that here. ***) "On binary drivers and stable interfaces", discussing why keeping a driver closed source hurts development. http://lwn.net/Articles/159313/ ****) Department of Defense report "recommends that the DoD move to a roadmap to adopt open source and open standards, maintaining that such a move is not only in the US national interest, but in the interests of US national security." http://www.businessreviewonline.com/os/archives/2006/07/o... *****) Also interesting is the fact that graphics cards get compared on how well they support Linux nowadays: http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/07/12/geforce_and_radeon_t... ******) "We believe in Open Source when it makes sense." http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,3935258... Regards, Floris Kraak --- "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced." --- Corollary to Clarke's Law
Posted Jul 20, 2006 3:45 UTC (Thu)
by vmlinuz (guest, #24)
[Link] (5 responses)
But you might want to look into the possibility of numbered footnotes rather than ********** :-)
Posted Jul 20, 2006 9:26 UTC (Thu)
by Randakar (guest, #27808)
[Link] (1 responses)
Kinda exhausted the number space already with the ordered list of arguments. ;-)
You're right though, it's not pretty.
Posted Jul 24, 2006 23:40 UTC (Mon)
by bluefoxicy (guest, #25366)
[Link]
[1] http://www.nsa.gov/
Posted Jul 23, 2006 20:51 UTC (Sun)
by thomask (guest, #17985)
[Link]
As in, "I call upon nVidia to put it's money where it's mouth is." As I'm sure you know, the posessive of "it" is always "its", and the abbreviation for "it is" is always "it's".
So the above quote should read, "I call upon nVidia to put its money where its mouth is".
Just a thought.
Posted Jul 27, 2006 8:10 UTC (Thu)
by pointwood (guest, #2814)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jul 12, 2007 23:14 UTC (Thu)
by sayler (guest, #3164)
[Link]
Greg K-H keeps saying this, and I don't think it's at all that clear cut. If he wants a counterexample, I know a very nice open-source friendly lawyer who disagrees.
I agree that closed-source drivers are counter-productive, ugly, and obnoxious, though.
Posted Jul 20, 2006 12:41 UTC (Thu)
by etienne_lorrain@yahoo.fr (guest, #38022)
[Link] (3 responses)
case 2: They do not release GPL drivers nor specification.
Posted Jul 20, 2006 16:09 UTC (Thu)
by __alex (guest, #38036)
[Link]
The only thing I can imagine is that there is a lot less difference between their Quadro line of cards
Posted Jul 20, 2006 17:19 UTC (Thu)
by thoffman (guest, #3063)
[Link]
So if NVidia and ATI had open source drivers for some of their newer hardware, many people might actually buy some new hardware from them...
For now, I expect my next motherboard will have an Intel video chip since those are well supported with free software.
Posted Jul 21, 2006 5:17 UTC (Fri)
by kirkengaard (guest, #15022)
[Link]
Extorting new purchases from old customers by obsolescing their functional product artificially is right in that general neighborhood.
Posted Jul 20, 2006 22:23 UTC (Thu)
by dwheeler (guest, #1216)
[Link]
Posted Jul 27, 2006 14:59 UTC (Thu)
by rvfh (guest, #31018)
[Link]
Posted Nov 29, 2006 5:32 UTC (Wed)
by krishna (guest, #24080)
[Link]
Uh, no comment on your content - which makes fine sense, and for the record I would only buy hardware with open drivers.Open letter to nVidia: Please open source the legacy nVidia video drivers
Open letter to nVidia: Please open source the legacy nVidia video drivers
Perhaps you should review some papers from the NSA[1] or check Google[2].Open letter to nVidia: Please open source the legacy nVidia video drivers
[2] http://www.google.com/
...and while we're about it, you might make a good impression on the corporate world if you took care to distinguish between "it's" and "its".Open letter to nVidia: Please open source the legacy nVidia video drivers
The problem is that there the number of "high performance 3D" video cards with open source drivers is around 0. In general there are only 2 manufacturers: NVIDIA and ATI. They both create only proprietary, unethical and illegal drivers. See http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html for more insight in that regard.Open letter to nVidia: Please open source the legacy nVidia video drivers
"They both create only proprietary, unethical and illegal drivers. See http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html for more insight in that regard."Open letter to nVidia: Please open source the legacy nVidia video drivers
-> quoting
"That's it, it is very simple. I've had the misfortune of talking to a lot of different IP lawyers over the years about this topic, and every one that I've talked to all agree that there is no way that anyone can create a Linux kernel module, today, that can be closed source. It just violates the GPL due to fun things like derivative works and linking and other stuff. Again, it's very simple."
case 1: They release GPL drivers or specification.nVidia is just a company trying to make money on the PC market
consequence: you can continue to use that old video card.
Consequences:
- You can no more use that old video card, so you have to go and buy a new one. You may even buy from the same hardware provider, in average a lot of people will buy a new video card from them.
- Basically, it means a cash loss within a few month - and as a hardware provider, they can not even ask for a higher price when providing documentation for Linux drivers (to compensate for their loss), Linux users will not pay more for their hardware.
- Due to clever people writing free drivers without documentation, they have to design some kind of encryption at the software/hardware interface for their next generation hardware.
You can already use that old video card, you upgrade for the hardware, not the new drivers. I don't nVidia is just a company trying to make money on the PC market
understand how free drivers would make people not want to upgrade to newer, faster, shinier
hardware.
and the GeForce ones than the price tags suggest. There are already mods (both in hardware and
software) that let you convert your standard GeForce card into a Quadro which enables additional
driver features I believe. So I don't see why that would put them off either particularly other than
making that sort of conversion any easier doesn't seem like something they should actively
participate in.
On the contrary, I won't upgrade my video card hardware until there's free software drivers for the hardware I buy. And I'm not alone in that either.nVidia is just a company trying to make money on the PC market
There is a point, in business, where pursuit of raw profit becomes detrimental to income. This occurs coincidentally with offending customers. The minute that you are more about the money than about the customer is the minute things start to tip. Customer service keeps business, and even creates business.dangerously rapacious
I agree! In fact, I want open source software drivers available
for all my cards, legacy or not, but this would be a good start.
Hooray! I agree!
Excellent letter. Then if you succeed (I wish) and AMD plays the Linux
games with newly-acquired ATI, we'll just need to convince SiS to make my
740 DRI/3D compliant under Linux/X. Ah, and Intel are our friends already!
Did I miss anyone?
Please open source the SiS drivers too!
Well, there's always this project and an associated pledge page. Even if Open source the legacy nVidia video drivers
the money doesn't produce a driver that much quicker, it's only $10 out of
your pocket, and nVidia would know that -- with or without their
cooperation -- the community is moving forward on putting in both money
and effort towards a free driver.
http://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/
http://www.pledgebank.com/nouveaudriver