Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 03 Jan 2003 16:15:57 -0800 | From | Samuel Flory <> | Subject | Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers? |
| |
jdow wrote:
>From: "Samuel Flory" <sflory@rackable.com> > > > >> I simply question the idea that someone would need or want to download >>the source, and compile it for the purposes of piracy. The current >>state of things seems to indicate the absence of source doesn't prevent >>piracy. I suspect that I can find a usable pirated copy of virtually >>any popular software on the net. This because copy protection doesn't >>work against any intelligent and determined person. It works against >>the really lazy, and stupid who wouldn't be able, or want to compile a >>program any way. >> >> > >There is a logic fallacy here, Samuel. Absence of source not preventing >theft has nothing to do with the level and kind of theft if the source >is placed out there for competitors to steal. >
There is no logical fallacy as I was talking in terms of consumer level piracy.
> When the hardware playing >field is more or less even and the OS playing field is more or less even >the only particular value added for games or for small marketplace code >comes from wringing superior performance out of the provided components. >When I place a piece of software out for purchase that features a new >innovation in the use of a given hardware platform my competitors look >it over intently, "How'd she do that?" I am pretty sure they can figure >it out quickly enough. But, I still have a 3 to 6 month lead time to pay >for the roof over my head before the competitors are selling the same >feature. If I give then my source code that lead time goes away and I >am left flipping burgers to pay for a coding habit. >
Don't get me wrong I understand this. This is why I feel most games would tend toward an escrow license if they tended toward any sort of open license. You could claim this as a trend by citing Doom, and Quake. Few games have a shelf life much beyond 6 months.
That said I've never bought a game because it had a certain feature. (Other than the ability to pause and issue orders in RTS.)
>Trust me, it ain't >going to go down that way. If a benefactor cares to pay for my >innovations and release them with source immediately then I am willing >to play the game. I am not after world domination. I just want to pay >for my food and housing and some hobbies so that my life is worth >living. I'm just not willing to give away what should be creating a >life for me. That way of living is an exotic form of suicide. As a >software consultant my income is getting paid for my work. If I release >that code to the public immediately it is ready for release I don't >have an income. Both my stomach and the IRS get disappointed. The >latter I can happily deal with. The former is more bother than I can >handle. > > I think you are taking this discussion a bit more serious than me. I'm just theorizing where trends are (or could be) heading. Of course my livelihood has always been dependent on selling hardware;-)
-- There is no such thing as obsolete hardware. Merely hardware that other people don't want. (The Second Rule of Hardware Acquisition) Sam Flory <sflory@rackable.com>
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |