Re: Honest does not pay here ...

[Stephen Satchell <list@fluent2.pyramid.net>]

At 07:15 PM 1/5/03 -0500, Trever L. Adams wrote:
>I expect that IP is expensive to buy.  Anyway, thank you for explaining
>the Nvidia situation to me.  I really hope they do figure out some
>things soon.  (Even if that is just how to make kernels with their
>modules loaded more stable and easier to debug.)

Trever,

Just because Nvidia incorporate API-related intellectual property in their 
current products doesn't mean that the next product they do will have the 
same IP restrictions.  Assuming that government and corporations continue 
to examine and adopt Linux over other desktop systems, Nvidia's project 
managers will have some incentive to look at this issue more closely.

As I see it, Andre's problems are a little tougher because there isn't a 
choice of alternatives to the IP that he incorporates in his product, if 
I'm reading his contributions correctly.  (I've not followed the arguments 
closely, so I could very well be in need of disabusement of my incorrect 
notions.)

I'm surprised Richard Stallman didn't remind everyone of the thing that 
started the whole argument for free software:  his inability to drive a 
laser printer because of closed, unpublished specifications.  I won't put 
words in his mouth (RMS is more than capable of speaking for himself) but 
his concern is if the company goes away and there are problems with the 
binary-only module, then people will be forced to junk the hardware or live 
with the problems.

Ok, I'll go back to my hole now.

Satch



-- 
The human mind treats a new idea the way the body treats a strange
protein:  it rejects it.  -- P. Medawar
This posting is for entertainment purposes only; it is not a legal opinion.