Re: [TCLUG:16719] The NVidia license

[Chris McKinley <lamfada@lugh.net>]

In this whole debate regarding releasing specs, IP, blah blah, there is
something which I think is being missed.

Specs != implementation details.

This can not be stressed enough.  Can you reverse engineer a CPU from its
instruction set and registers?  No.  Can you clone it? Yes.  So what is it
that releasing register and instruction sets for video cards allows?  
Cloning.

Why would cloning a video card be a good idea?  To take advantage of 
software written to the card you are cloning.  Where do we see card 
specific code?  Drivers.  Would a clone card have exactly the same 
behavior as the cloned card?  Probably not.  Would the driver be better
optimized for the clone, or the cloned card?  Probably the cloned card.

If you are cloning someone elses IP, are you innovating.  Perhaps, but
you are spending a lot of time reverse engineering.  That is time not
spent on new features.  How would register specs and instruction sets 
assist the reverse engineering process?  Since they document the 
external interface, not much.

So, what Matrox understands is basically this:
Card specs do not really help the competition.
The presence of drivers is important to the use of their product on the 
UNIX platform(s).
Releasing card specs helps driver writers build and maintain good drivers 
for their product.
Releasing card specs looks good politically (remember RMS and Xerox?).
Drivers that Matrox doesn't have to write == more $$$ for better hardware.
Card specs promote the use of their equipment by UNIX geeks, even those who
can't / don't have time to write them.

What NVidia thinks is basically this:
Card specs might help the competition a little.
The cost of maintaining drivers is relatively small compared to the benefit
gained by the competitors who have access to specs.
The cost of loss of sales is relatively small compared to the benefit gained
by the competitors who have access to specs.

So, which is correct?  Well, Matrox has good product, maybe not the fastest,
but certainly excellent visual quality.  Even though it is demonstrably 
slower, there are a large number of people who choose Matrox because even
if Matrox goes under or stops supporting the cards, the information will
still be there to support the cards.  There are also a number of people who
will not buy NVidia b/c of the lack of specs for the creation of open 
drivers.  There are also those who blindly follow the benchmarks, as if
performance in Quake were all that mattered.  Neither view is really
correct, however I think that it is silly to use an OS which is built
on freedom (speech), and then throw closed drivers on it.

Just my $0.02.

-Chris