Piotr Gluszenia Slawinski wrote:
There is no point supporting companies that give you a little bit of
information in exchange they want the support that being in a mainline
kernel gives. Its an unfair exchange of knowledge and time, and if they
claim they have to make a profit then its even more unfair.
also, they seem to do it quite wrong way. i.e. much simpler would be to
just implement regular, open driver , and implement additional crypto
mechanism in chipset itself, allowing to use simple userspace program
sending certified keys allowing GPU to operate.
if key is not available and device/driver not paid/registered, then
GPU would simply lock itself , similiar to pre-paid designs from
company whose name should not be spoken aloud.
also certain functionality could be ordered with same chip structure,
i.e. framebuffer, unaccelerated 2d, accel 2d, 3d, etc.
with user buying proper 'entry level' pre-paid code set from manufacturer.
this would provide quite same functionality (profit), without impacting
open-source projects like Xorg with unnessesary complications.
Pardon me for intruding in this discussion, but I'm astonished that you
actually find what you posted to be acceptable. If I pay for a piece of
hardware, I have the right to use it. Requiring certified keys before it
performs the function for which it was purchased is pure nonsense.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
