febaen at gmail.com
Thu Apr 3 05:19:45 CDT 2008
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 03 April 2008, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> > > Avoid nVidia unless you agree with all of these statements:
> > > 1. Don't care that this combination is illegal.
> > Never heard that one before.
> I'll cite Greg on this one...
> "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."
> * http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html
That looks like it's talking about working them into the kernel and
distributing it, not just using it in a system. Much in the same way
that I could make a change to my copy of the source, compile it to a
binary and never release it; but if I release the binary, I have to
give out the source too.
ATI might work for you; when I tried to use it I got nothing but
problems, both on Windows and Linux. The same goes for everyone else
I've ever talked to about graphics cards on linux. Nvidia, however,
worked out of the box. I'm not going to argue that it's better to be
open source when possible; obviously that's the main reason most of us
are here; but neither of those companies are very good options yet.
More information about the Kclug