video cards

[Jeffrey Watts]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
>
>  Again, the GPL applies to source releases just as much as binary releases.
>  Whether they distribute binary or source, they still need to abide by the law.

You sir confuse "law" with "copyright".  Any infringement nVidia does
is a civil matter, not a criminal one.  Your choice of words is
probably unintentional, though I suggest you be more precise as the
ones you choose are much more sensational.

As far as your point goes, I do not disagree with you.  There are
valid arguments on both sides, though.  However, I would argue that
the community has much bigger fish to fry and that perhaps we ought to
deal with more important issues first.

>  A proprietary driver is useless.
>  It would be better to have nothing for nVidia than their blobs.
>  At least then there would be enough interest in the community to either put
>  them out of business or create reverse engineered support.

To clarify, it is useless _to you_.  You seem to have a romanticized
view of the Free Software community - that we somehow all live by the
mantra "give me liberty or give me death".  Perhaps you're just new to
the movement, as if you check your history you'd find that in the past
these kinds of compromises were made all the time.  Do you think that
GCC was developed on a Free Unix?  Do you think that Linux was
originally developed on a Free Unix?  There are many other examples.

I agree that the ultimate goal should be a fully functional and open
nVidia driver.  I disagree with you that we ought to cut off our nose
to spite our face.

Jeffrey~

-- 

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy
from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a
precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine