2008/5/21 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>: > There are such things as non disclosure agreements that can prevent > publishing information. Why shouldn't you respect their legal obligations? We're not saying they shouldn't. I am tempted to suggest they shouldn't enter into those in the first place, that would be a large can of worms though and we don't want to open another one of those while we still have a large number of nematodes wriggling away in this thread. > The binaries permit redistribution. How does that make it impossible to > have in a repository? Again, that's not the issue; the problem is that even when they *are* in a repository, they don't work with the current X.org. I see at least two popular third party repositories that do carry both the nVidia and the ATI proprietary drivers; why are there so few complaints from the ATI users about this state of affairs? > This seems to be speculation, seeing as how we don't have a release and the > xorg drivers were done before they told anyone else the interface was > stable. OK, so F9 is now not a release? > It may be legal commitments - but its their right either way and not really > anyone else's business. Yet everyone thinks it's their business to badmouth the Fedora project because they haven't allowed NVidia's legal commitments to change the Fedora project's aims and processes? > Open source is probably a tiny part of their business. The stuff seems OK > on a Mac and I haven't seen this kind of complaint about Solaris which uses > essentially the same driver. But perhaps they do a better job of > coordinating their releases so all the needed components are ready before > users have to deal with it. They'll have exactly the same problems if and when Solaris upgrades their X server. The Fedora project doesn't sell hardware and thus has less obligation (moral or otherwise) to provide for binary drivers for their OS. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
