Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 2 Jan 2003 21:14:50 -0800 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: GPL and Nvidia |
| |
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 01:26:24PM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote: > AH! A man of reason here! > It would be nice if "LI" got in the business of issuing license > subscriptions for binary only modules. Where the binary vendor must > register and pay a royality fee. This fee would be used to support "LI" > and defend Linux in a court case if needed. > I personally would gladly pay a reasonable (usual and customary) fee for > the service and right to sell binary models with out having to pay a > lawyer to write a "position" and be prepared to sue every snot nose brat > in the world. > Otherwise, one has to deal with unreasonable people. > There are people who do not work for distros or have found that other > companies want to control their contributions to GPL, but need a means to > support themselves with there other works related to emerging > technologies. > Obviously I am being way to sensible about the issue, and should go use > NetBSD instead and give them the license money.
I don't give two hoots about the money or the open/closed stuff in the context of "Is it the right thing to do?" or "What should nvidia do?" nvidia's drivers have developed a bad reputation, at least in my mind, and I don't want their bugreports (even though RH was hurt worst here), and I don't want my betatesters adding that unknown into the equation.
Supposedly they've improved lately, not that I care. One only need be bitten once.
Maybe having no way to prove a bug's fixed is a downside of binary modules.
Bill - 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/
| |