Opinion: NVIDIA drivers are a Good Thing [tm]

[Rodolfo J. Paiz]

At 13:45 5/17/2004, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
>1. It all starts on:
>
>     STEP 1: Review the NVIDIA Software License. You will need to accept
>     this license prior to downloading any files.
>
>So I am forced to agree with something even before I download it and try
>it. No Free Software license will force you to agree with something
>before trying it out.

Undesirable conditions on a license is a valid reason to prefer Open 
Source, and one with which I agree. Caveat: when trying to keep a secret, 
the *only* legal way of which I am aware to impose that secrecy by contract 
is before the other party has possession of the information. So, given that 
they are trying to keep things closed, this is a necessary thing from their 
point of view.

I realize that you disagree with their intent to keep that secret, and that 
you find the license disagreeable, and I partly agree. My disagreement is 
strong enough to make me want to prefer, support, and improve alternatives 
that do not have these conditions where possible, convenient, and not too 
expensive, but does not go as far as to cause me to quit using their 
product; yours does.

Both are valid points of view. I do not consider that in any case this can 
be construed as "treating me like a criminal" and "cheating me". It is 
merely providing a product or service under strict conditions, with which 
you or I may or may not agree.

>2. Then on the preamble of the license:
>
>     By downloading, installing, copying, or otherwise using the
>     SOFTWARE, you agree to be bound by the terms of this LICENSE.  If
>     you do not agree to the terms of this LICENSE, do not download the
>     SOFTWARE.
>
>Another thing unknown in the Free world: I'm not bound to a license to
>use software...

Again a valid reason to prefer Open Source, again not something that 
bothers me hugely right now, again not "treating me like a criminal" et al.

>3. Then the recitals start by using a threatning memorandum:
>
>     The SOFTWARE is protected by copyright laws and international
>     copyright treaties, as well as other intellectual property laws and
>     treaties.  The SOFTWARE is not sold, and instead is only licensed
>     for use, strictly in accordance with this document.

Again they are trying to keep a secret. If they sell it to me, it is easier 
for me to go against their wishes for the software, so they license it in 
the hopes of legally restricting my freedom to do things with this 
software. This may be reason enough to switch to another product for many 
users, but hey... I see no "like a criminal" threat here. They wrote it or 
acquired it, and they release it under certain terms. Buy their stuff or 
not... free market. But no horrible behavior that I can see.

>Conclusion: they dare define the purposes I might want to run the
>drivers for.

Yes, I see that. They are working on the traditional paradigm of software 
authoring, which you and I both agree is not ideal and which is outclassed 
by Open Source. But they are entirely within the legal, ethical, and moral 
grounds established by the free market of goods and services. So right now, 
you choose not to use their products. I choose to help other products 
evolve to the point where they can supplant these, but not switch yet. 
Where's the problem?

>4. In 1.1: Customer
>5. 2.1.1 forbids me from downloading (* yes, true! *)
>6. 2.1.2 Linux Exception, explicitly tells you that you have ONE freedom
>if you use the drivers _with_Linux_, to distribute copies.
>7. No Reverse Engineering.
>8. It goes on...

I'll skip the rest of the analysis here. The point is you find their 
license and way of doing business distasteful enough to immediately cease 
any use of their products. Fine. I do not feel the same way. Also fine. I 
believe that at no point have you justified your claim that, by using their 
products, I "accept their treating me like a criminal." Even if I were to 
go out and do everything they forbade, at worst we have a 
breach-of-contract issue and they can sue me, and I can countersue and 
fight it just like any other contract. There is no criminality, real or 
implied, anywhere in here.

>If you did, did you comply with this paragraph? Or are you now a
>criminal for helping a friend?

Again, no criminality implied or explicit. You may be in breach of 
contract, and you may therefore be obliged to comply with the license or 
risk a lawsuit. Leaving aside the point that the risk is actually 
negligible, philosophically the point is that, while you may find the 
contract with which they license the software horrible, it is indeed legal 
and viable and you should read and understand *any* contract you accept.

Use it or drop it... but the Greek lament you raised about cheating, and 
treating their customers like criminals, and forcing outrageous conditions? 
Drama. Just drama. Or hey, maybe I'm wrong, maybe you actually believe that 
they (and nearly every other software manufacturer out there) really is 
treating you like a criminal. If so, I do not claim to understand your 
radical view of contract law; but I can tell you that, at least in the 
wonderfully-horrible litigious orgy that is the United States (what I see 
as the worst case), reality is much less grim than what you portray.

>Then it gives you no warranties, offers no responsability or liability
>for problems (imagine if in certain conditions you got a total
>filesystem corruption and lost something important...).

Please, show me any application that *does* take responsibility or 
liability for any of those things!

>I don't consider it idiocy. You DO CLAIM to use the driver for the 3D
>support, right? That's what the allegory of "bright colours" refers to.

No, I don't. I said I got their driver after the nv module X gave me was 
unable to go beyond 800x600 at 60Hz resolution without massive noise on the 
screen which made the display practically unusable. I got their driver and 
was able to move immediately to the 1600x1200 at 75Hz resolution I wanted. I 
could care less about 3D.

Cheers,


-- 
Rodolfo J. Paiz
rpaiz at simpaticus.com
http://www.simpaticus.com