RE: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source stuff...

RE: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source stuff...

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 216 bytes --]

no decent legal problems, all dodgy texture compression...

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

On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 22:26:27 -0800 Bill Huey (Hui) <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1997 bytes --]

From: Bill Huey (Hui) <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org>
To: Erik Andersen <andersen@codepoet.org>, Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>, Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>, Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rms@gnu.org
Cc: "Bill Huey (Hui)" <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org>
Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 22:26:27 -0800
Message-ID: <20030102062627.GA4295@gnuppy.monkey.org>

On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 11:12:33PM -0700, Erik Andersen wrote:
> 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

That's being too idealistic, IMO. And hearing somebody like me
say that, well...uh...;)

> 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...

I think folks have to identify if the company is doing this
intentionally to hold into something irrationally or just because
of legal reasons. If it's just legal reasons, then i'll give them
slack.

bill