src.rpms only for ethical reasons? (was: kernel-module-nvidia-driver for kernel-2.2.22-1.2149.nptl?)

[Axel Thimm]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 03:58:40AM +0000, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
> Redistributing proprietary binaries makes me nervous, that's
> all. The NVIDIA software license is full of ambiguity, which
> inclines me to not modify the upstream at all before release.

That's from nvidia's README:

> Q: Why does NVIDIA not provide rpms anymore?
> 
> A: Not every Linux distribution uses rpm, and NVIDIA wanted a single
>    solution that would work across all Linux distributions.  As
>    indicated in the NVIDIA Software License, Linux distributions are
>    welcome to repackage and redistribute the NVIDIA Linux driver in
>    whatever package format they wish.

On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 03:58:40AM +0000, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
> You're right, maybe it is a big fuss about nothing, but I've got an
> ambiguous licence in one hand, and the principles of Fedora (and OSS
> in general) in the other.

I think the license as quoted above is non-ambigous, but definitely
not within Fedora's definition of content.

> So, as you point out, why do I bother at all? Because despite the nature
> of closed source software, in this case it is something I need and use
> every day.

Hopefully OSS GL/DRI support will improve, but currently most
performant drivers are closed source :(

As if the competition wouldn't be able to disassemble. I guess at one
moment in time some vendor will start releasing (good) OSS drivers and
the others will follow. OSS is after all a spreading disease ;)
-- 
Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20040118/8ac436e3/attachment-0001.sig>