Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Dec 2006 22:28 UTC
"Recently there has been a lot of discussion bubbling up regarding the possibility that Ubuntu will ship proprietary 3D drivers by default for some video cards. My aim here is not to discuss the specifics of that decision, which is still being fleshed out and ratified, but to instead define my views on the bigger picture behind the discussion - features vs. freedom."
Thread beginning with comment 194117
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-09-21
Here is the HDTV card website -> http://www.pchdtv.com/ !
But.. now I may be mistaken.. even it needs some small binary blob for the tuner or something.. Not unlike Intel's "open" i810 actually, which still needs a binary blob for video-out to function (for Macrovision) and I would also forsee binary blobs needed to implement HDCP legally as well.
Yes, finally!
Of course this wouldn't happen if the hw itself was fully open (which is practically impossible for wireless and some communication/broadcasting devices due to the FCC, unfortunately), but it raises another issue I've always wondered about: if you use a license like GPL for it, how far does its "viral" nature extend? We already have the linking issue with it in software, and more restrictions in v3 based on usage, but what about hardware? What would consitutue a "derived" product?
What if I didn't directly use someone else's GPL hw design, but instead used a finished off-the-shelf GPL chip and interfaced it with a non-GPL board or other hardware?