From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 25 09:12:33 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A866E16A41F for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:12:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.web-strider.com [65.75.192.90]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50DE43D5C for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:12:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from tedwin2k (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.197.130]) by mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id jAP9FNb87034; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 01:15:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: "Micah" Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 01:12:18 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 In-Reply-To: <4385E618.9090007@ywave.com> Importance: Normal Cc: Hans Nieser , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Does FreeBSD 6.0 fully support PCI-Express? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:12:33 -0000 >-----Original Message----- >From: Micah [mailto:micahjon@ywave.com] >Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 8:11 AM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: Hans Nieser; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >Subject: Re: Does FreeBSD 6.0 fully support PCI-Express? > > >> >> Micah, if this has changed, please cite where. I myself also >happen to >> have a system with an onboard nvidia card so I really am interested, >> not just trying to flame-bait. > >I think I understand your claim. Source code with an open source >license is not Open Source unless it is actively maintained by someone >and has freely available specs. No, not exactly. This is a special case with device drivers. A simple standalone program that does not interface with hardware, if it's source is open with an open source license, it's open source, even if it is not actively maintained, and even if nobody has published a flowchart or logic diagram that indicates how the code works. Such a program can be modified or maintained by anyone, if they are competent enough. But device drivers are different cases, because even if the source is open, and licensed as open, unless you are able to determine how the hardware works from looking at the source code, it really isn't open source because nobody can modify it. Nobody that is, except someone who has the hardware technical documentation. And that documentation is not something Nvidia gives out, even under NDA. The author of NV, Mark, is an Nvidia employee, so he has access to this data and can modify the driver. But nobody else can modify the driver who doesen't work for Nvidia. Thus it's immaterial - for a device driver - if source is open or not or source is licensed as open source or not, because other people are prevented from working on the driver. It would be like if I patented a software algorithim and released "open source" for it, then started suing everyone for patent violations who simply used that source. (NOT copyright violations) Kind of like Unisys and the .gif file format. >Under that criteria, I guess NV isn't >open source. > There's an open source organization which is trying to establish branding on the name "open source" who has a bunch of criterian that they claim a program license must meet to be termed "open source" I don't hold with that, but if you do I do not think that the source for the nv driver meets their criterian either. I view a program as being open source based on what the copyright holder intends with it. For example, I don't have a problem with a copyright holder claiming copyright on a program then writing a license that only permits people to download the source and compile it and use it in their own projects, or for custom projects they are doing for other people, but prohibits people from compiling binaries of the program then selling those binaries as standalone programs, or using the source in software that they are selling standalone binaries of. To me, that is "open source" but to a lot of people it isn't. To GNU it isn't, but rather than writing a license that bars selling software, they wrote a license that requires source to be provided if you do sell the software, in the hopes that this would kill enthusiasm among people for selling open source. Goals of GNU and the hypothetical copyright holder are the same, but approach to that goal is different - thus GNU claims it's own stuff is open source and the hypothetical copyright holders stuff isn't. Ted