From owner-freebsd-multimedia Wed Apr 26 10:58: 1 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org Received: from mail2.netcologne.de (mail2.netcologne.de [194.8.194.103]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0B3C37BD13 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 10:57:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from van.woerkom@netcologne.de) Received: from oranje.my.domain (dial-lind-42.netcologne.de [195.14.250.42]) by mail2.netcologne.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA13010; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:57:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from marc@localhost) by oranje.my.domain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04350; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:56:41 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from van.woerkom@netcologne.de) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:56:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200004261756.TAA04350@oranje.my.domain> X-Authentication-Warning: oranje.my.domain: marc set sender to van.woerkom@netcologne.de using -f From: Marc van Woerkom To: shocking@prth.pgs.com Cc: dfr@nlsystems.com, cokane@one.net, multimedia@FreeBSD.ORG, shocking@ugly.prth.tensor.pgs.com In-reply-to: <200004260810.QAA27528@ugly.prth.tensor.pgs.com> (message from Stephen Hocking-Senior Programmer PGS SPS Perth on Wed, 26 Apr 2000 16:10:06 +0800) Subject: nvidia driver for XF86 4.0 (was: DRI on XF86 4.0) Reply-To: 3d@FreeBSD.ORG References: <200004260810.QAA27528@ugly.prth.tensor.pgs.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-multimedia@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > I see that nVida have released their Linux binary drivers which are apparently as > fast as or faster than their windows counterparts. I am in contact with nvidia about creating a FreeBSD kernel module, they say it is not too difficult. > There are supposedly some legal encumberances to be gotten rid of before > they can fully open source them. Why do you think so? Have you seen some statement from them in that direction? If yes, I would be interested to read it. I have seen several arguments for their move to binary only: a) The graphics card market is very competetive and they fear to disclose trade secrets if their source gets out, after all the driver adds value to the hardware b) They used patented techniques and fear getting sued when the source reveals patent infringements c) There is only a very limited number of people capable of improving an open sourced driver while there are large number of less skilled hackers that might produce crappy drivers and hurt the company brand. So they gain not much by disclosing and risk to loose more by disclosing. d) They don't have specs in a condition to hand out and don't want to get their engineer distracted with time consuming questions from the open source crowd e) Microsoft pays them not to play by open source rules Possibly it is a weighted average of all those what motivated them. Regards, Marc To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-multimedia" in the body of the message