Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?

--1041490113993
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I say we start a driver based on the UTAHs. MR. Anderson had a good schedule :), knock knock neo... ;-))

Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].

On 	Wed, 1 Jan 2003 23:12:33 -0700 	Erik Andersen <[e-mail]> wrote:

--1041490113993
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.116.70.75]) by smtp.cwctv.net  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.447.44);
	 Thu, 2 Jan 2003 06:13:35 +0000
Received: ([e-mail]) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S265725AbTABGEE>; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 01:04:04 -0500
Received: ([e-mail]) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S265754AbTABGEE>; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 01:04:04 -0500
Received: from codepoet.org ([166.70.99.138]:8417 "EHLO winder.codepoet.org")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S265725AbTABGEC>;
	Thu, 2 Jan 2003 01:04:02 -0500
Received: by winder.codepoet.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 2CF801579E0; Wed,  1 Jan 2003 23:12:33 -0700 (MST)
Date:	Wed, 1 Jan 2003 23:12:33 -0700
From:	Erik Andersen <[e-mail]>
To:	Bill Huey <[e-mail]>
Cc:	Paul Jakma <[e-mail]>, Rik van Riel <[e-mail]>,
	[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Mail-Followup-To: Erik Andersen <[e-mail]>,
	Bill Huey <[e-mail]>, Paul Jakma <[e-mail]>,
	Rik van Riel <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
	[e-mail], [e-mail]
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.19-rmk2, Rebel-NetWinder(Intel StrongARM 110 rev 3), 185.95 BogoMips
X-No-Junk-Mail:	I do not want to get *any* junk mail.
Sender:	[e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List:	[e-mail]
Return-Path: linux-kernel-owner+Hell.Surfers=[e-mail]

On Wed Jan 01, 2003 at 05:37:36PM -0800, Bill Huey wrote:
> Obviously a GPL rewrite of this would entail a lot of replicated effort
> and would also depend on things that are incomplete, non-existent and
> don't have a lot direct interest from the GPL community. 3D isn't a hot
> commodity in Linux, FreeBSD unlike with dedicated SGI machines (although
> faded).

Ahh, but replicated effort is something that open source people
do very well at indeed.  If nvidia provided non-functional GPL
source code with all the proprietary 3rd party bits ripped out, 
I would expect a hoard of developers would jump at the chance to
fixup the non-functional mess, clean it up, reimplement all the
missing proprietary bits.  I'd bet you $20 US we could have a
functional driver within 2 weeks.  And have a high quality driver
roughly equal to their proprietary one within 6 months.  Thats
the way things work around these parts of the net.  I bought a
copy of Quake when they GPLd their code to show support.  I
similarly bought a copy of Quake II after they GPLd their code.
If Nvidia released their code under the GPL, I'd buy one of their
cards.  As is, I'm sticking with my ATI card...

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen             http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--