-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 01:09:53PM +0100, Brad Rogers wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 06:52:05 -0400 > RavenLX <rave...@sitesplace.net> wrote: > > Hello RavenLX, > > >This poses an interesting question: Why would a company keep something > >proprietary such as a driver? > > Control. And the (misguided?) belief that they'll end up fielding tech > support questions for driver modifications they didn't make.
Last, but not least, their opponents a leg up in the perverse "you stepped onto one of our 15432 otherwise worthless patents!". > >As a programmer, I don't think many (if any) would be able to say, > >reverse-engineer a chip or device, etc. and replicate it just by > >looking at programming code (unless I'm mistaken)? > > It'll certainly give people a few clues as to how nVidia achieve certain > things. Having (even) incomplete sources does help in reverse engineering. With determination, even the headers + machine code go a long way (you need impressive skills, good tools and loads of patience, but those are all available). > To be clear; I'm not supporting nVidia's position, I'm simply playing > Devil's Advocate. OTOH, I can't claim to be totally against nVidia's > position either; I use their GFX cards and drivers on two machines > here. > > IOW, I don't pursue software freedoms with as much keenly as some others > do. Each has to find his/her position, and it'll be always a compromise. For me, a behaviour like nVidia's is enough to avoid their products in my purchase list. Cheers - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlluD7EACgkQBcgs9XrR2kb5wgCeItyFsBOYNc3C6wRgz1r1y3o9 3EcAnR7ZSOWg0JtQpVEsIeIZp+oD64JV =2bYD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
