subject:"\[opensuse\] Fw\: Driver Repository for openSUSE \/ SuSE Linux Enterprise \(nVidia\)"

Let me first say, that I perfectly understand the wish for open specs
for open drivers. That supporting closed modules is a nightmare, neither
Novell nor the kernel folks want to do. And I therefore have no problem
in accepting, if they are thrown out because of _these_ reasons. Just
call it like this and tell the users We don't want it, even if it
influences your fine experience with our product.

What I'm doing in the following is disputing the arguments that throwing
out can be argued as forced by the GPL.

Andreas Hanke schrieb:
 Siegbert Baude schrieb:
 Exactly, it should be the choice of the user, not of the distributor.

 You are wrong: The user's choice is restricted to what the copyright
 holder permits.
 
 It would be a nightmare if non-contributing users could make decisions
 that are against the expressed intention of the copyright holders. This
 would render the whole concept of copyright law and also copyleft pointless.

As Marcel already pointed out, the expressed intention of the copyright
holders is the GPL of the kernel source. Anything else would be just
insane with regard to the heterogeneous crowd called kernel developers.
Any words on any mailing lists or blogs just don't count.

So what was never judged in front of a court was the derived work part
of the GPL. The interpretation of some kernel folks (again there are
also contradicting opinions over there) is (in nice words) very
embracing. They say if the proprietary module uses some header files
to attach to the kernel interfaces, this means derived work. But what,
if a vendor produces only one piece for many OSs? Let's say a unified
driver for Windows, FreeBSD and Linux? And just adds glue to every OS?
Do you think you can really say that this work is derived from the Linux
kernel then? And yes there is the FreeBSD Nvidia driver project at
http://fbsd-nvdriver.sourceforge.net/. Read there:

[start quote]
Q: Will this alone give me accelerated 3d?
A: No, this is the stub component to interface with NVIDIA Corporations
kernel, in addition to an NVIDIA card that supported 3d acceleration
(TNT or later).
[end quote]

Wrapping Windows drivers for Linux use is common in WLAN area, too, so
there are examples for OS independent proprietary drivers.

In my conclusion this says, that the argumentation proprietary drivers
in Linux-derived work is just flawed.

Next argument: Where in the GPL are processor Ring 0 or something
similar mentioned? Where kernel mode vs. user land? Do you think a
judge would follow this differentiation, when kernel folks say
proprietary is fine in user land, but not in kernel mode? In both
cases there is just some interface between hardware and driver, syscalls
in one case, direct access in the other. Again, I perfectly understand
the technical difference and why the kernel folks very much prefer the
one solution, but I'm talking about legal issues now.
So if there is no mentioning in the GPL of kernel mode or ring 0
and, as mentioned above, using headers doesn't mean derived work, how
could a judge differ between accepted user land and illegal kernel
mode? He just sees code (hardware drivers) running on a system with the
Linux kernel as a glue between user and hardware. But somebody tries to
convince him that one case is legal whereas the other is illegal,
despite no mentioning of the differences in the relevant license. The
only difference is, that the licensor in one case says it is o.k. for
me (he says so, because it does not disturb his technical integrity of
the kernel) that the drivers use the kernel interface in user land, but
in the other case he says it is not o.k. for me (because the driver
can tear the complete kernel down).
From the point of view of the judge however, the difference is just the
additional demand from the licensor (the kernel folks). But will he find
this in the license under which the work is published? Does the judge
know anything about linking code, shared libs, statically compiled in or
dynamically used? Should he know or should the license just be enough to
decide?

Let's furthermore assume somebody just takes the kernel, forks it and
says, my interpretation of the GPL is, using header files is no derived
work. So you have two identical projects with two identical licenses,
but one should be illegal with proprietary drivers and one is not? Do
you believe this is sensible?

As long as no court has said was is fact in this case and what is not,
nobody should argue that the GPL forces proprietary drivers to be
thrown out. And as long as there is no illegal action, also
distributing cannot be forbidden.

My personal opinion is, there is just an abuse of the GPL in order to
force hardware vendors to open specs by social pressure. The GPL never
wanted to forbid any use of software together with GPLed code or you
could never use any other non-GPL programs on top of your GPL-kernel.
The purpose of the GPL is to get modified code back, which is the real
interpretation of derived work. And

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

Andreas Jaeger schrieb:
 Siegbert Baude [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Andreas Jaeger schrieb:

 My *personal* opinion on these drivers is explained here:

 http://www.novell.com/coolblogs/?p=489

 Cited from there:
 In my personal opinion you cannot talk about open source without talking
 about freedom of choice. [..]I would like everybody to have at least the
 same choice with kernel drivers - the chance to run an open source
 driver on all of your hardware.

 So may I add that, if I understand the participants of this discussion
 correctly, all is wanted is that Novell leaves this choice to the users?

 What *I* (this is my blog entry and not representing official
 Novell policy as all Coolblogs) say is that I would like to have the
 chance to run open source drivers!

I understood this, I just used your argument the other way round.
Admitted, as mall provocation, but no harm intended. :-)

 And for me this means binary modules have to be distributed within SUSE,
 otherwise you buy the CD set and have no choice at all without Internet
 access, which still is something not everybody in the world has.

 You can still run the provided drivers, you will miss 3d support for
 Nvidia.  The right alternative would be to provide open source
 drivers that support the hardware completely,

Everbody agrees in that. Let's hope that future will bring this. But
until then SUSE is about caring for users, which means giving *them* the
choice by still distributing what they need to use their hardware. To
the legal implications see my other mail just published.

Ciao
Siegbert

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

T. Lodewick schrieb:
 Siegbert Baude schrieb:

 Please, stop spreading FUD. The judgments were about urging the
 manufacturer (network routers using iptables, IIRC)to give their
 modified GPL code to the public, which they held closed before. Nowhere
 are there 3rd party binaries involved.

 as I have written already here in the thread, I don't have the (printed)
 papers anymore: it was an article in the paper c't from heise in the
 year 2004. I don't have an archiv of the old ones, so I can't tell you
 the exact number.

I will check at home, I have the c't archives on CD (nice service, just
spend the few extra Euros for your abonnement). But I'm quite sure, what
the content of the German judgments were, i.e. the need to publish
modified code, which is just not our problem here.

 so if they do, there should no
 legal way to offer them [kernel + driver] together. and it mid not your
 view that offering a distro [with kernel] in one folder of a server and
 closed-source-drivers in another folder is the same - but for the courts
 it is.)

 So the kernel folks can tell what to host on your servers? Brave new GPL
 world. Can you please cite the court, which gave this judgment?

 as this is the base for holding copyrights and acting against offence
 against it you don't realy say that I need to post a link to somewhere,
 don't you ?

The base for getting rid of unwanted software on somebody else's server
is a copyright violation. This violation has to be judged by a court. So
as long as there is no judgment, there is no violation, there is no
urged removing of software. You however claimed that it is a _court's_
view that distributing proprietary modules is illegal. Without citing a
 court's judgment this ist just untrue. Please stop this in the future.

 not every developer that is involved in the kernel, the modules etc.
 think about that way. there are a lot of discussions on the mailinglist
 about that topic. while some developers accept that there are
 closed-source-drivers, there are others that don't.

 So you say yourself that the situation is not clear.

 the situation is mutch clear then some people like. but in fact not all
 holder of copyrights act gainst offence.

So please make the situation clear for me, too, and dispute my arguments
from Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Until then, may we agree to
disagree?

 same server = distro:
 the view of the courts ( in a realy short way ! ): if you offer access
 to a product A with licennce LIC_A and you offer also access to a
 product B that can only run on top of product A but hits the licence
 LIC_A you are violaiting the LIC_A. so it is the right of the holder of
 licence LIC_A that you don't offer access to both products A and B.

 Please again, give some links or infos about which court said this. 

 again, this is the base for holding copyright. if you offer access to a
 program I've written ( so I have the copytights and I choose the licence
 of the program ) and you also offer access to another program that used
 something from my program but hits my licence I have two choises:
 
 1. asking you to stop the access to that other program
 2. don't give you permisson to distribute my owen software anymore.
 
 thats real basic, and you can read about that evey time on any
 IT-relaited news-site.

The first point is product B that can only run on top of product A,
which is not the case for Nvidia drivers (see
http://fbsd-nvdriver.sourceforge.net/), the second is violating the
license, which is just a claim by some kernel folks, but not based on
court facts. Until now there is nothing which makes this basic
copyright facts apply to removing drivers from servers. Maybe you
should broaden your sources of information to some non-geek-IT-related
news sites, to get rid of hardliners dominating the discussion.

 And just for your info, the binaries are not only to run on top of Linux
 kernel's GPL license, but also e.g. on top of BSD licensed FreeBSD
 kernel. So the first assumption is already wrong.

 ok. you think also that even if you can do that you also have permission
 to do that ? or do I missunderstand you here ?

Exactly, because then this is a clear indication that the driver is no
derived work.

 I have to say I don't know BSD-licence axactly - but in a lot of
 discussions in forums ( mainly at the ones at www.heise.de ) about GPL
 versus BSD I've read that a source code released under GPL can't be also
 compatible to BSD as BSD gives permissions that GPL doesn't. but correct
 me if I'm wrong here.

Search for just my name in this forum and you can find my opinion to GPL
vs. BSD. For our case it is just important, if drivers are derived
work and therefore violate GPL. I doubt this, to be honest.

Ciao
Siegbert
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-14 Thread Andreas Jaeger


Siegbert,

there are some kernel developers that do considers binary only drivers
a violation of the GPL.  Just googling around found me the following:
http://kororaa.org/index.php?entry=entry060512-160752

We at Novell have decided to respect the view of the kernel developers
as owner of it.

It might be that you're right and there's no violation - or perhaps
none for a specific module but some for other modules, or you're
wrong.  But this is something for lawyers to discuss and I cannot
comment further on the legal side of this,

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.suse.de/~aj/
  SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126


pgp3iYNYvkp5Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

Andreas Jaeger schrieb:
 Siegbert,
 
 there are some kernel developers that do considers binary only drivers
 a violation of the GPL.  Just googling around found me the following:
 http://kororaa.org/index.php?entry=entry060512-160752

I know this very well, also the doomsday scenario. And I also know that
in this world most people just follow the one shouting loudest. Seems
the hardliners at kernel.org shout the loudest at the moment.

 We at Novell have decided to respect the view of the kernel developers
 as owner of it.

 It might be that you're right and there's no violation - or perhaps
 none for a specific module but some for other modules, or you're
 wrong.  But this is something for lawyers to discuss and I cannot
 comment further on the legal side of this,

This is perfectly up to you, just don't call this proven facts, that's
all I'm saying. It is just the view of some developers. Was there ever a
democratic poll with all kernel contributors about their opinion?

And IMHO as long as there are no proven facts for license violations,
Novell should care for their users more than for individual opinions.
But I'm already satisfied, if you call the beast with the correct name,
i.e. We don't want it because of support reasons both inside the kernel
team and for Novell as a company. Just don't abuse the GPL, it does not
earn this.

Ciao
Siegbert
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-14 Thread Thomas Hertweck


Siegbert Baude wrote:
 Let me first say, that I perfectly understand the wish for open specs
 for open drivers. 
 [...]
 So what was never judged in front of a court was the derived work part
 of the GPL. The interpretation of some kernel folks (again there are
 also contradicting opinions over there) is (in nice words) very
 embracing. 
 [...]
 As long as no court has said was is fact in this case and what is not,
 nobody should argue that the GPL forces proprietary drivers to be
 thrown out. And as long as there is no illegal action, also
 distributing cannot be forbidden.
 [...]
 My personal opinion is, there is just an abuse of the GPL in order to
 force hardware vendors to open specs by social pressure. The GPL never
 wanted to forbid any use of software together with GPLed code or you
 could never use any other non-GPL programs on top of your GPL-kernel.
 The purpose of the GPL is to get modified code back, which is the real
 interpretation of derived work. And therefore, if there is some
 non-derived work it should be o.k. to use it together with GPLed code
 independent of using syscalls vs. header files. Non-derived in a
 sensible manner means that the biggest part of the work was done without
 using anything of GPLed code, which for me is clearly the case for
 graphics card drivers.
 [...]

I am in complete agreement with this statement!

Cheers,
Th.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-14 Thread Matthias Hopf

On Sep 13, 06 18:53:32 +0200, T. Lodewick wrote:
 but I have also written about an act between some kernel maintainer
 against a hardware vendor ( or to be more clear: a router vendor ) that
 has used code from iptable in his software. in that case the german
 court agreed with the maintainers, and give a clear statemend about the
 GPL and the german law.
 if you didn't read that, let me know, I can post the links again.

I vaguely remember that, and it was a completely different case. AFAIR
what the router vendors did (there were several) was a pretty rock solid
breach of the GPL.

This is not perfectly clear in the binary driver situation. They do not
ship GPL code without revealing the source.

 I know that this ( using GPL-licenced code in closed source progarms)
 isn't the same then linking a ( closed sourced ) driver against a
 (GLP-licenced) kernel module it shows 2 importend views:

(should read before answering ;)

 - the GPL is accepted at german courts so it is conform to german law
 - there are ways for the maintainers to get there rights at a (german) court

Nobody ever neglegted that.

 I agree total with you that this all is a gray zone as you wrote. and
 I also agree with a lot of people on this list that there must be a
 solution for a) the users to don't get in conflict with the licence and
 make it easy for them to use a driver b) for the maintainer of distros
 to don't get also in conflict with a licence and to include as mutch
 drivers at needfull and c) also the kernel maintainer that there get the
 rights they have.

Ok, peace :)
And world domination =)

  I think we all agree that open-source drivers are to be preferred and
  might be the best solution. However, from my point of view the cheap
  propaganda that some people make against closed-source drivers does not
  help to solve the problem at all!
 
 thats your point of view. I have another one. and others maybe have
 there owen. to name that views cheap propaganda is not realy nice, and
 with that your owen posts ends to the same: not nice cheap propaganda
 against people that believe more in open sourced drivers and it doesn't
 solve the problem at all too.

I agree here. The kernel developers have a valid point, and calling that
propaganda doesn't help anyone.

Matthias

-- 
Matthias Hopf [EMAIL PROTECTED]   ____   __
Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg(_   | |  (_   |__ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone +49-911-74053-715__)  |_|  __)  |__  labs   www.mshopf.de
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-14 Thread Philipp Thomas

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:15:57 +0200, Siegbert Baude wrote:

The purpose of the GPL is to get modified code back, which is the real
interpretation of derived work.

It doesn't have to be modified, simple use of GPLed code is enough. If
the glibc where under GPL instead of LGPL, *every* program linked
against it would have to be open sourced. But vendors don't even
follow the LGPL, or have you seen any vendor of a closed source
program/library offer the object files for relinking with a newer
version of glibc?

Non-derived in a sensible manner means that the biggest part of the
work was done without using anything of GPLed code, which for me is
clearly the case for graphics card drivers.

You can't really tell without actually seeing the code! 

Dispute my arguments from above please, but not with technical wishes
based on support reasons or somebody's expressed opinions besides
the license iteself, but from a legal point of view, because that is all
Novell should care about.

Neither of us is a lawyer, ain't it so? So who of us can tell what is
and what isn't a violation of the license. There are IP lawyers that
say that the use of kernel interfaces indeed constituates a derived
work, at least under US law.

And as long as there are possibly viable legal claims that can't be
ignored easily, a US company like Novell will try to avoid the whole
matter as much as possible.

Philipp
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-13 Thread Siegbert Baude

Matthias Hopf schrieb:
 On Sep 12, 06 10:13:12 +0200, Dominique Leuenberger wrote:

 The interesting fact for me is still that Novell is providing the RPMs
 to nVidia... so the 'linking' is NOT done by nVidia, but by Novell (for
 the SLE) products. Why should a company not worry for the license in the
 Enterprise products? But do worry on the free version?

 The problem is not linking, but distributing.

Matthias, could you shortly explain or give a link to an explanation why
distribution is a problem? Is it just because Novell doesn't want to
support (read: offer service for customers with problems) those binary
modules or because you think, that the GPL doesn't allow the
distribution? The first case I can perfectly understand, but the latter
case would be really new to me as AFAIK nowhere in the GPL is written
something about packages which are given by the same channels than some
GPL code. If it were like this, this would mean in the end, that the GPL
and the kernel folks can control what you host on your servers, which
can just be not true, can it?

 Use intel.

Only exists onboard. What is the Novell solution for AMD users?

 For: offer us drivers: We are not a hardware vendor. Thus we don't
 write drivers ourself. We help fixing them and package them.

But you are not willing to distribute them anymore or did I get you wrong?

Ciao
Siegbert

P.S.: Also went to Matthias only in the first time, sorry.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-13 Thread Siegbert Baude

T. Lodewick schrieb:
 again thats _your_ according. not that of Novell / Suse as also other
 members of the list. and - and thats importend - in point of view of
 some courts in some countries ( in USA and germany, for example: in both
 countries the courts agreed against some hardware vendors that there
 closed-source-drivers violaited the GPL.

Please, stop spreading FUD. The judgments were about urging the
manufacturer (network routers using iptables, IIRC)to give their
modified GPL code to the public, which they held closed before. Nowhere
are there 3rd party binaries involved.

 so if they do, there should no
 legal way to offer them [kernel + driver] together. and it mid not your
 view that offering a distro [with kernel] in one folder of a server and
 closed-source-drivers in another folder is the same - but for the courts
 it is.)

So the kernel folks can tell what to host on your servers? Brave new GPL
world. Can you please cite the court, which gave this judgment?

 not every developer that is involved in the kernel, the modules etc.
 think about that way. there are a lot of discussions on the mailinglist
 about that topic. while some developers accept that there are
 closed-source-drivers, there are others that don't.

So you say yourself that the situation is not clear.

 
 same server = distro:
 the view of the courts ( in a realy short way ! ): if you offer access
 to a product A with licennce LIC_A and you offer also access to a
 product B that can only run on top of product A but hits the licence
 LIC_A you are violaiting the LIC_A. so it is the right of the holder of
 licence LIC_A that you don't offer access to both products A and B.

Please again, give some links or infos about which court said this. And
just for your info, the binaries are not only to run on top of Linux
kernel's GPL license, but also e.g. on top of BSD licensed FreeBSD
kernel. So the first assumption is already wrong.

Ciao
Siegbert

P.S.: And for nearly the last time, sorry for the double mail to Thomas. :-)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-13 Thread Siegbert Baude

Andreas Jaeger schrieb:
 My *personal* opinion on these drivers is explained here:
 
 http://www.novell.com/coolblogs/?p=489

Cited from there:
In my personal opinion you cannot talk about open source without talking
about freedom of choice. [..]I would like everybody to have at least the
same choice with kernel drivers - the chance to run an open source
driver on all of your hardware.



So may I add that, if I understand the participants of this discussion
correctly, all is wanted is that Novell leaves this choice to the users?
And for me this means binary modules have to be distributed within SUSE,
otherwise you buy the CD set and have no choice at all without Internet
access, which still is something not everybody in the world has.

Ciao
Siegbert

P.S.: So from now on I will hopefully remember to change the receiver to
the list.  ;-)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-13 Thread Andreas Hanke

Siegbert Baude schrieb:
 Exactly, it should be the choice of the user, not of the distributor.

You are wrong: The user's choice is restricted to what the copyright
holder permits.

It would be a nightmare if non-contributing users could make decisions
that are against the expressed intention of the copyright holders. This
would render the whole concept of copyright law and also copyleft pointless.

 But to get this choice, the distributor has to deliver the binaries,
 too.

Novell is much more than just a distributor. Novell is part of the
kernel community and cannot do things that the rest of the actively
contributing community dislikes without being excluded from the
community in the long term.

You are totally over-estimating your position as a probably
non-contributing user. (Correct me if this assumption is wrong.) As
such, you have no rights to make any choices other than the ones granted
by the copyright holders.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-13 Thread T. Lodewick

Thomas Hertweck schrieb:
 [some good points]
 
 In order to learn more about it, I have recently asked to provide the
 references for some judgements that were made at German courts and that
 were mentioned in an email here. But, as expected, when you ask for
 details and when you try to figure out whether these judgements really
 concern the questions that have been discussed on this list, then
 usually you get no answer. Don't take everything for granted, we should
 sometimes also dare to ask the detailed and unpopular questions -
 although some people don't like it.

thats not true. as I was the one that wrote about that I've also
ansered. as I wrote already, there was an article in one of the papers
c't from heise. I read about it in the year 2004 and as I don't have
an archive about the old ones, I can't tell you exactly the number of
the paper.

but I have also written about an act between some kernel maintainer
against a hardware vendor ( or to be more clear: a router vendor ) that
has used code from iptable in his software. in that case the german
court agreed with the maintainers, and give a clear statemend about the
GPL and the german law.
if you didn't read that, let me know, I can post the links again.

I know that this ( using GPL-licenced code in closed source progarms)
isn't the same then linking a ( closed sourced ) driver against a
(GLP-licenced) kernel module it shows 2 importend views:

- the GPL is accepted at german courts so it is conform to german law
- there are ways for the maintainers to get there rights at a (german) court

I agree total with you that this all is a gray zone as you wrote. and
I also agree with a lot of people on this list that there must be a
solution for a) the users to don't get in conflict with the licence and
make it easy for them to use a driver b) for the maintainer of distros
to don't get also in conflict with a licence and to include as mutch
drivers at needfull and c) also the kernel maintainer that there get the
rights they have.

 I think we all agree that open-source drivers are to be preferred and
 might be the best solution. However, from my point of view the cheap
 propaganda that some people make against closed-source drivers does not
 help to solve the problem at all!

thats your point of view. I have another one. and others maybe have
there owen. to name that views cheap propaganda is not realy nice, and
with that your owen posts ends to the same: not nice cheap propaganda
against people that believe more in open sourced drivers and it doesn't
solve the problem at all too.

 Cheers,
 Th.

best regards,
JBScout aka Thomy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-13 Thread Thomas Hertweck


T. Lodewick wrote:
 [...]
 thats not true. as I was the one that wrote about that I've also
 ansered. as I wrote already, there was an article in one of the papers
 c't from heise. I read about it in the year 2004 and as I don't have
 an archive about the old ones, I can't tell you exactly the number of
 the paper.

You could not provide the references, therefore your arguments cannot be
verified. In a nutshell, your arguments are therefore of no relevance at
the moment.

 [...]
 I know that this ( using GPL-licenced code in closed source progarms)
 isn't the same then linking a ( closed sourced ) driver against a
 (GLP-licenced) kernel module it shows 2 importend views:
 
 - the GPL is accepted at german courts so it is conform to german law
 - there are ways for the maintainers to get there rights at a (german) court
 
 I agree total with you that this all is a gray zone as you wrote. and
 I also agree with a lot of people on this list that there must be a
 solution for a) the users to don't get in conflict with the licence and
 make it easy for them to use a driver b) for the maintainer of distros
 to don't get also in conflict with a licence and to include as mutch
 drivers at needfull and c) also the kernel maintainer that there get the
 rights they have.

I would like to know whether binary-only kernel drivers, when linked
into the GPLed kernel, violate the GPL license. Nobody has been able to
show a proof of this statement so far. You are now talking about the
general acceptance of the GPL license and whether German courts
recognize the importance of the GPL license etc. Yes, they do and that's
good! But this is not the point here. It's only about a very simple
question, now already mentioned several times. But the answer seems to
be very very complicated. And I am not lawyer...

 [...]
 thats your point of view. I have another one. and others maybe have
 there owen. to name that views cheap propaganda is not realy nice, and
 with that your owen posts ends to the same: not nice cheap propaganda
 against people that believe more in open sourced drivers and it doesn't
 solve the problem at all too.

It is cheap propaganda as long as nobody can really show that
closed-source kernel modules violate the GPL. The whole discussion would
stop if somebody actually had an evidence of this statement. At the
moment, it's just a statement without any proof. I believe in open
source and open source drivers, so my email cannot be cheap propaganda
against it, and indeed it isn't. I am only asking for evidence because I
am not taking everything for granted! If this evidence does not exist,
then people should stop blaming closed-source drivers and stop
threatening companies that produce/distribute these drivers. If the
evidence exists, then it should be made public and closed-source drivers
should be banned completely. We cannot go on with this grey zone
that's why I am asking for clarification.

Cheers,
Th.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-13 Thread T. Lodewick

Siegbert Baude schrieb:
 T. Lodewick schrieb:
 again thats _your_ according. not that of Novell / Suse as also other
 members of the list. and - and thats importend - in point of view of
 some courts in some countries ( in USA and germany, for example: in both
 countries the courts agreed against some hardware vendors that there
 closed-source-drivers violaited the GPL.
 
 Please, stop spreading FUD. The judgments were about urging the
 manufacturer (network routers using iptables, IIRC)to give their
 modified GPL code to the public, which they held closed before. Nowhere
 are there 3rd party binaries involved.

as I have written already here in the thread, I don't have the (printed)
papers anymore: it was an article in the paper c't from heise in the
year 2004. I don't have an archiv of the old ones, so I can't tell you
the exact number.

 so if they do, there should no
 legal way to offer them [kernel + driver] together. and it mid not your
 view that offering a distro [with kernel] in one folder of a server and
 closed-source-drivers in another folder is the same - but for the courts
 it is.)
 
 So the kernel folks can tell what to host on your servers? Brave new GPL
 world. Can you please cite the court, which gave this judgment?

as this is the base for holding copyrights and acting against offence
against it you don't realy say that I need to post a link to somewhere,
don't you ?

 not every developer that is involved in the kernel, the modules etc.
 think about that way. there are a lot of discussions on the mailinglist
 about that topic. while some developers accept that there are
 closed-source-drivers, there are others that don't.
 
 So you say yourself that the situation is not clear.

the situation is mutch clear then some people like. but in fact not all
holder of copyrights act gainst offence.

 same server = distro:
 the view of the courts ( in a realy short way ! ): if you offer access
 to a product A with licennce LIC_A and you offer also access to a
 product B that can only run on top of product A but hits the licence
 LIC_A you are violaiting the LIC_A. so it is the right of the holder of
 licence LIC_A that you don't offer access to both products A and B.
 
 Please again, give some links or infos about which court said this. 

again, this is the base for holding copyright. if you offer access to a
program I've written ( so I have the copytights and I choose the licence
of the program ) and you also offer access to another program that used
something from my program but hits my licence I have two choises:

1. asking you to stop the access to that other program
2. don't give you permisson to distribute my owen software anymore.

thats real basic, and you can read about that evey time on any
IT-relaited news-site.

 And just for your info, the binaries are not only to run on top of Linux
 kernel's GPL license, but also e.g. on top of BSD licensed FreeBSD
 kernel. So the first assumption is already wrong.

ok. you think also that even if you can do that you also have permission
to do that ? or do I missunderstand you here ?

I have to say I don't know BSD-licence axactly - but in a lot of
discussions in forums ( mainly at the ones at www.heise.de ) about GPL
versus BSD I've read that a source code released under GPL can't be also
compatible to BSD as BSD gives permissions that GPL doesn't. but correct
me if I'm wrong here.

 Ciao
 Siegbert
 

best regards,
JBScout aka Thomy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-13 Thread T. Lodewick

Thomas Hertweck schrieb:
[...]
 
 It is cheap propaganda as long as nobody can really show that
 closed-source kernel modules violate the GPL. [...] We cannot 
 go on with this grey zone that's why I am asking for clarification.
 
 Cheers,
 Th.

ok, two points for you ;) I can't tell anymore the number of the paper
so I shouldn't talk about it anymore.

both sides ( maintainer versus [closed sources] driver vendors ) have
problems to show that there point of views are correct and the others
aren't. maybe the situation will be better when the PCI API that will
allow binery drivers to run in userland is part of a kernel some days.

and with the grey zone: I think its clear for all sides that this is
something that must be solved. as fast as possible.

regards,
JBScout aka Thomy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-12 Thread Thomas Hertweck


Dominique Leuenberger wrote:
 [...]
 So sorry Novell: If you're THAT much against these closed source drivers
 (as they are against GPL, which we all agree) [...]

We all agree? Sorry, no. Even Linus himself says, it's a difficult topic
and a grey zone at the moment. Some kernel developers say, third-party
 closed-source drivers are violating the GPL. This can only be true if
such drivers, when linked into the kernel, can be considered as derived
from the kernel - in this case, the closed-source driver is violating
the GPL as the kernel itself is distributed under GPL license. However,
it's not as clear as some people want us to believe that the third-party
driver can be considered as derived from. The question at the end of
the day is how lawyers interpret the term derived from. As a software
developer, my understanding of derived from seems to be a bit
different from other people's opinion...

In order to learn more about it, I have recently asked to provide the
references for some judgements that were made at German courts and that
were mentioned in an email here. But, as expected, when you ask for
details and when you try to figure out whether these judgements really
concern the questions that have been discussed on this list, then
usually you get no answer. Don't take everything for granted, we should
sometimes also dare to ask the detailed and unpopular questions -
although some people don't like it.

I think we all agree that open-source drivers are to be preferred and
might be the best solution. However, from my point of view the cheap
propaganda that some people make against closed-source drivers does not
help to solve the problem at all!

Cheers,
Th.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

Rajko,

On Sep 08, 06 19:44:10 -0500, Rajko M wrote:
  And prevent many users from actually using Linux at all, because there
  is *no* really fast 3D hardware with OS drivers.
  
  It's not so simple.
 
 It Matthias.
 If we start to run to get more users as the only goal that we going to
 loose even existing base. Linux picks up computer users that know for
 sure that they don't want what is offered in other environments.

I know. I'm not saying I'm all for binary modules, not at all. I'm just
saying the world isn't black and white.

  There are no specs, so they cannot be published.
  
  Release cycles are too fast, there is no documentation even within ATI
  or NVIDIA.
 
 That is the same as there is airplane without plans. Do you need this in
 Linux?

It is *definitvely* not the same.

- If a plane crashes people die. This is typically not the case if a
  graphics driver crashes.

- Planes don't get obsolete after 2 years.

- Planes cost a bit more than 200-500 bucks.

- The airplane market is a little bit bigger than the graphics hardware
  market.

- It is also a little bit more regulated than the graphics hardware
  market.

Do I need high-performance graphics in Linux?  *YES*
Wouldn't have my job, wouldn't have my PhD without.

 Open source has problems with documentation too, but at least, the
 ultimate specification, source code is open, so you can compare to the
 real world.

Then what? Why is the r200 driver in such a bad shape? It's open source,
and many people are working on it.

For complex hardware w/o docs with erratas you need direct access to the
hardware engineers. Which, of course, is only possible in-house.

Other than that you're right, we DO want open source drivers. But not if
that means the producers just kick out the code and abandom it. Because
without input from the original developers they start falling to a
silent, miserable death. We want something like the intel drivers, which
are still mostly being worked on by intel (not directly, but who cares).

 Once upon a time computer did exactly what is specified. If not vendor
 was laughed out like an incompetent bunch of amateurs. No one wanted
 such reputation because it meant no customers.

Once upon a time a computer had 640KB of memory, because that was more
than was ever needed.

Don't, just don't compare the complex beasts we have nowadays with a PC
of 1980 or even a ZX-1 or an old SuperMicro.

 You can imagine how sounds it is normal that first released version is
 buggy. If first is buggy, and release cycles are so fast, what version
 will have no bugs? The one that is not released?

Software has bugs. Period.
This is a lema in computer science, like it or not:
All even modestly complex software has bugs.
Read: helloworld.c has (hopefully) no bugs, all others have.

It's just the number and severence of bugs we are finding in some
products at release time that may really get on one's nerve. On mine,
too, of course.

 While for multimedia computers some bugs are not important, for computer
  as machine that is meant to compute exact values, almost any bug is
 important. It indicates that program is not properly tested, and user
 can't trust that it will perform as designed in important functions.

No, typically 90% of all bugs will never ever be encountered, or they
will have no side effects (which is close enough to not being a bug, I
admit).

Yes, the space shuttle and ariane software has bugs as well. Only those
that showed up bad (read: destroying the aircraft) are noticed by the
public.

Matthias

-- 
Matthias Hopf [EMAIL PROTECTED]   ____   __
Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg(_   | |  (_   |__ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone +49-911-74053-715__)  |_|  __)  |__  labs   www.mshopf.de
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

On Sep 08, 06 10:59:22 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
  On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 04:36:22PM +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote:
   
   There are no specs, so they cannot be published.
   
   Release cycles are too fast, there is no documentation even within ATI
   or NVIDIA.
  
  You want to tell me that the driver developers at these companies work with
  the trial-and-error method? --- Well, at least that would explain the 
  quality
  of their drivers...

Well, not exactly trial-and-error.
They probably have design specs, but what is actually delivered in
silicon is typically quite a bit off. Some things turn out not to be
implementable, some trigger a slow path, some things are buggy.

You have to work around in the driver, and I assume that approx. 30-50%
of the code is about workarounds. This is only an educated guess, so
don't take my words for granted.

Of course some errors are only found by trial-and-error, but that is the
case in the whole software industry. Even if you use formal methods, in
that case the driver might do exactly what you specified, but what you
specified is not necessarily what you actually wanted...

Matthias

-- 
Matthias Hopf [EMAIL PROTECTED]   ____   __
Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg(_   | |  (_   |__ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone +49-911-74053-715__)  |_|  __)  |__  labs   www.mshopf.de
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

On Sep 08, 06 12:14:10 -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:
 Good but Intel only produce  integrated  graphics chips and with the worst
 performance in the market. Yes i know Intel is the bigger graphics chips

True, but it's getting better. For desktop uses and older games it's
certainly enough now.

 There is just no open source solution to high performance 3D acceleration in
 Linux, is because of linux developers ? or Graphics cards vendors ? or too
 fast Release cycles ?, i don't know, and people who actually buy this cards

Probably all of that.

 And btw Intel open source graphics are not completely open, they have some
 binaries for functions like Macrovision.

True, but that doesn't add any real value.

 And I'm not trying to say here, that suse or kernel developers must add
 ati's and nvidia drivers in the kernel, I understand why they can't and
 don't want to do that, but if you are waiting to ATI or nvidia to open their
 drivers, then i hope you have a really long life to make the waiting.

I still haven't abandomed all hope ;)

Matthias

-- 
Matthias Hopf [EMAIL PROTECTED]   ____   __
Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg(_   | |  (_   |__ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone +49-911-74053-715__)  |_|  __)  |__  labs   www.mshopf.de
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-11 Thread Robert Schiele

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 06:43:19PM +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote:
 Well, not exactly trial-and-error.
 They probably have design specs, but what is actually delivered in
 silicon is typically quite a bit off. Some things turn out not to be
 implementable, some trigger a slow path, some things are buggy.

Ah, now that again sounds a bit more realistic.

 You have to work around in the driver, and I assume that approx. 30-50%
 of the code is about workarounds. This is only an educated guess, so
 don't take my words for granted.
 
 Of course some errors are only found by trial-and-error, but that is the
 case in the whole software industry. Even if you use formal methods, in
 that case the driver might do exactly what you specified, but what you
 specified is not necessarily what you actually wanted...

Yes, this is true for (almost) the whole software industry.  But you can
partition the whole software industrie into two groups: The one that has so
much clue that they update their specs or at least document the problems to
prevent walking into their own trap again and the one that has not. --- From
implementation reviews I must admit that the second group might be
significantly larger...

Robert

-- 
Robert Schiele
Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.


pgpvZZZjo7RXo.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

On Sep 11, 06 19:21:05 +0200, Robert Schiele wrote:
 On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 06:43:19PM +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote:
  Well, not exactly trial-and-error.
  They probably have design specs, but what is actually delivered in
  silicon is typically quite a bit off. Some things turn out not to be
  implementable, some trigger a slow path, some things are buggy.
 
 Ah, now that again sounds a bit more realistic.

Yes, but these design specs might even be incomplete, point to other
specs that cannot be published (M$ internals), and are typically in a
shape that you cannot deliver them outside (contradicting versions,
maybe even had-written notes, etc.), under no circumstances.

If you want to push the data out, you would have to clean up and check
IP - which would cast about the same as creating them in the first
place.

 Yes, this is true for (almost) the whole software industry.  But you can
 partition the whole software industrie into two groups: The one that has so
 much clue that they update their specs or at least document the problems to
 prevent walking into their own trap again and the one that has not. --- From
 implementation reviews I must admit that the second group might be
 significantly larger...

:-/ I assume so.

Matthias

-- 
Matthias Hopf [EMAIL PROTECTED],  SuSE labs,  Zimmer 3.2.06,  Tel. 74053-715
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-10 Thread HG


Hi!

First of all, I'm sorry, if this has allready been addressed or that I
have missed something in this long thread.

On 9/8/06, Philipp Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 10:59:16 -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:

i have to add, that SLED 10, have a botton in the desktop to install XGL,
this script also install nvidia or ati propietary drivers if is it necesary,
i'm sure is a mistake and you are going to elimate this script or fase the
legal consequences.

Why should we? The script downloads the driver from Nvidias or ATI's
site, that's a totally different thing.


Why can't OpenSUSE then have the same script? Whould that be easy
enough to get the drivers?

--
HG.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-10 Thread Martin Schlander

Søndag 10 september 2006 10:39 skrev HG:
  Why should we? The script downloads the driver from Nvidias or ATI's
  site, that's a totally different thing.

 Why can't OpenSUSE then have the same script? Whould that be easy
 enough to get the drivers?

I guess the script can only be used, provided Nvidia and ATi host KMPs for the 
relevant SUSE kernel.

As I understand it is doubtful that ATi and Nvidia will provide KMPs for 
openSUSE 10.2 kernel(s). 

I hope the last word hasn't been spoken on that matter. It's really a feature 
that can help move a lot of people to Linux.. especially the ATi-owners. And 
also a feature that could set openSUSE a part from other distros. Has 
potential to be a killer feature.

Martin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-10 Thread Stefan Dirsch

On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 11:39:54AM +0300, HG wrote:
 On 9/8/06, Philipp Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 10:59:16 -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:
 
 i have to add, that SLED 10, have a botton in the desktop to install XGL,
 this script also install nvidia or ati propietary drivers if is it 
 necesary,
 i'm sure is a mistake and you are going to elimate this script or fase the
 legal consequences.
 
 Why should we? The script downloads the driver from Nvidias or ATI's
 site, that's a totally different thing.
 
 Why can't OpenSUSE then have the same script? Whould that be easy
 enough to get the drivers?

Don't we talk about /opt/gnome/bin/gnome-xgl-settings, which is
already in compiz package on (open)SUSE 10.1? 

Anyway, only installing the drivers for 10.1 isn't that hard.

  http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/nvidia-installer-HOWTO.html
  http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/ati-installer-HOWTO.html

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Stefan

Public Key available
--
Stefan Dirsch (Res.  Dev.)   SUSE LINUX Products GmbH
Tel: 0911-740 53 0Maxfeldstraße 5
FAX: 0911-740 53 479  D-90409 Nürnberg
http://www.suse.deGermany 
--
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-10 Thread Stefan Dirsch

On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 10:51:30AM +0200, Martin Schlander wrote:
 Søndag 10 september 2006 10:39 skrev HG:
   Why should we? The script downloads the driver from Nvidias or ATI's
   site, that's a totally different thing.
 
  Why can't OpenSUSE then have the same script? Whould that be easy
  enough to get the drivers?
 
 I guess the script can only be used, provided Nvidia and ATi host KMPs for 
 the 
 relevant SUSE kernel.

Which works (by accident) for SUSE 10.1, since SLE10/10.1 use the same
(kernel) code base.

 As I understand it is doubtful that ATi and Nvidia will provide KMPs for 
 openSUSE 10.2 kernel(s). 

Correct.

 I hope the last word hasn't been spoken on that matter. 

I do hope so as well ...

 It's really a feature 
 that can help move a lot of people to Linux.. especially the ATi-owners. And 
 also a feature that could set openSUSE a part from other distros. Has 
 potential to be a killer feature.

Of course.

Stefan

Public Key available
--
Stefan Dirsch (Res.  Dev.)   SUSE LINUX Products GmbH
Tel: 0911-740 53 0Maxfeldstraße 5
FAX: 0911-740 53 479  D-90409 Nürnberg
http://www.suse.deGermany 
--
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-10 Thread T. Lodewick

Stefan Dirsch schrieb:

 Don't we talk about /opt/gnome/bin/gnome-xgl-settings, which is
 already in compiz package on (open)SUSE 10.1? 
 

I don't know if we talk about that script, but I think its not a good
way to have only that script - for me for example there is no neet for
XGL + compiz. its more like a nice to see feature, but it is in
conflict ( for me et last ) to run VMWare on my machine ( the graphic
speed isn't realy good after installing XGL + compiz ).
so, as people don't want to use XGL + compiz they will not get the
script. ( ok, I know that I can install compiz without XGL, but when I
should install compiz to use that script I also can install the driver
directly. however ... ).

 Anyway, only installing the drivers for 10.1 isn't that hard.
 
   http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/nvidia-installer-HOWTO.html
   http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/ati-installer-HOWTO.html
 
 Hope this helps.

I think the point is not to find any working hints how to install the
driver. I think some people like to have a popup during install that
says hi. I've found a nvidia[ati] card. do you like to use the open
source driver from openSUSE or a driver directly loaded from the vendors
website ?. and after making the choise the script will install the
regarding driver.


 
 Best regards,
 Stefan
 


also best regards from Berlin,
JBScout aka Thomy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-10 Thread Stefan Dirsch

On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 02:53:23PM +0200, T. Lodewick wrote:
  Anyway, only installing the drivers for 10.1 isn't that hard.
  
http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/nvidia-installer-HOWTO.html
http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/ati-installer-HOWTO.html
  
  Hope this helps.
 
 I think the point is not to find any working hints how to install the
 driver. I think some people like to have a popup during install that
 says hi. I've found a nvidia[ati] card. do you like to use the open
 source driver from openSUSE or a driver directly loaded from the vendors
 website ?. and after making the choise the script will install the
 regarding driver.

I think we provide this for SLED10, but implemented it a long time
after 10.1 has been released and since it's unlikely that we'll have
KMPs for openSUSE 10.2 ...

Stefan

Public Key available
--
Stefan Dirsch (Res.  Dev.)   SUSE LINUX Products GmbH
Tel: 0911-740 53 0Maxfeldstraße 5
FAX: 0911-740 53 479  D-90409 Nürnberg
http://www.suse.deGermany 
--
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-09 Thread Thomas Hertweck


T. Lodewick wrote:
 [...]
 in USA and germany, for example: in both
 countries the courts agreed against some hardware vendors that there
 closed-source-drivers violaited the GPL. 
 [...]

Please provide the references.

Cheers,
T.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-08 Thread Matthias Hopf

On Sep 05, 06 01:01:21 +0200, Robert Schiele wrote:
 Your only chance to improve this situation is to force the hardware vendors to
 provide open specs or drivers. If you don't have the power to do so, you lost
 in the first place.

There are no specs, so they cannot be published.

Release cycles are too fast, there is no documentation even within ATI
or NVIDIA.

Matthias

-- 
Matthias Hopf [EMAIL PROTECTED],  SuSE labs,  Zimmer 3.2.06,  Tel. 74053-715
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-08 Thread Matthias Hopf

On Sep 05, 06 19:34:36 -0500, Rajko M wrote:
 The only thing that we can do is to accept their decision, include such
 hardware in Linux Incompatible list, and advertise that list all over
 the place, to prevent people from buying a lemon.

And prevent many users from actually using Linux at all, because there
is *no* really fast 3D hardware with OS drivers.

It's not so simple.

Matthias

-- 
Matthias Hopf [EMAIL PROTECTED]   ____   __
Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg(_   | |  (_   |__ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone +49-911-74053-715__)  |_|  __)  |__  labs   www.mshopf.de
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-08 Thread Robert Schiele

On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 04:36:22PM +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote:
 On Sep 05, 06 01:01:21 +0200, Robert Schiele wrote:
  Your only chance to improve this situation is to force the hardware vendors 
  to
  provide open specs or drivers. If you don't have the power to do so, you 
  lost
  in the first place.
 
 There are no specs, so they cannot be published.
 
 Release cycles are too fast, there is no documentation even within ATI
 or NVIDIA.

You want to tell me that the driver developers at these companies work with
the trial-and-error method? --- Well, at least that would explain the quality
of their drivers...

Robert

-- 
Robert Schiele
Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.


pgp2njf2xQ3ur.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-08 Thread Greg DeKoenigsberg


On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Robert Schiele wrote:

 On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 04:36:22PM +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote:
  
  There are no specs, so they cannot be published.
  
  Release cycles are too fast, there is no documentation even within ATI
  or NVIDIA.
 
 You want to tell me that the driver developers at these companies work with
 the trial-and-error method? --- Well, at least that would explain the quality
 of their drivers...

Yes, actually, Matthias is exactly right.

The graphics hardware industry is in a miserable state for exactly this 
reason: they *can't* collaborate.  Their only reason for being in business 
is to sell hardware, and to sell that hardware they must have value-add.  
And since it's hard to produce *real* value-add, they instead play silly 
games with drivers.

Which is why Intel's move into this space is so important.  They know
that, in this case, open source *is* the value-add.  A good article on
this topic:

http://news.com.com/Intel+aims+for+open-source+graphics+advantage/2100-7344_3-6103941.html

--g

-
Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org
Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors
-

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-08 Thread Marcel Mourguiart

2006/9/8, Greg DeKoenigsberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Robert Schiele wrote: On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 04:36:22PM +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote: There are no specs, so they cannot be published. Release cycles are too fast, there is no documentation even within ATI
or NVIDIA. You want to tell me that the driver developers at these companies work with the trial-and-error method? --- Well, at least that would explain the quality of their drivers...
Yes, actually, Matthias is exactly right.The graphics hardware industry is in a miserable state for exactly thisreason: they *can't* collaborate.Their only reason for being in businessis to sell hardware, and to sell that hardware they must have value-add.
And since it's hard to produce *real* value-add, they instead play sillygames with drivers.Which is why Intel's move into this space is so important.They knowthat, in this case, open source *is* the value-add.A good article on
this topic:Good but Intel only produce integrated graphics chips and with the worst performance in the market. Yes i know Intel is the bigger graphics chips vendor, but when people actually need real 3D acceleration, Intel is not a choice, they compete in a specific segment of the market, where 3D acceleration high performance is just not important. They don't need to take care about industrial secrets in theirs cards, because there is just no secrets in those specifics cards, they have just nothing nvidia or ati would like to copy.
The real value-add in ATI and nvidia is performance. Take the time to see reviews on the net with Intel 3D performance, is just miserable if you compared with ATI's or nvidia solutions even in integrated mother boards. Release cycles are too fast, because ATI and nvidia compete with each other to have the better performance and yes is normal even in windows word that the first drivers of a new release are chonky.
You can probably say's that computer is for serious business, not for games and you probably right if we are talking about companys, but home computers are a complete different story, home computers are used in several ways including games.
There is just no open source solution to high performance 3D acceleration in Linux, is because of linux developers ? or Graphics cards vendors ? or too fast Release cycles ?, i don't know, and people who actually buy this cards just don't care, they want the performance they buy for.
And btw Intel open source graphics are not completely open, they have some binaries for functions like Macrovision.And I'm not trying to say here, that suse or kernel developers must add ati's and nvidia drivers in the kernel, I understand why they can't and don't want to do that, but if you are waiting to ATI or nvidia to open their drivers, then i hope you have a really long life to make the waiting.
-- Marcel Mourguiart

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-08 Thread Greg DeKoenigsberg


On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:

 The real value-add in ATI and nvidia is performance. Take the time to see
 reviews on the net with Intel 3D performance, is just miserable if you
 compared with ATI's or nvidia solutions even in integrated mother boards.
 Release cycles are too fast, because ATI and nvidia compete with each other
 to have the better performance and yes is normal even in windows word that
 the first drivers of a new release are chonky.

This is certainly true today.  Which means that the open source model has 
something to prove: if we have access to Intel, can we help them do 
better?

 And I'm not trying to say here, that suse or kernel developers must add
 ati's and nvidia drivers in the kernel, I understand why they can't and
 don't want to do that, but if you are waiting to ATI or nvidia to open their
 drivers, then i hope you have a really long life to make the waiting.

Ultimately, the goal is to route around ATI and nVidia as damage.  
That's what open source does -- if you believe in it.  :)

--g

-
Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org
Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors
-


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-08 Thread Alexey Eremenko


And btw Intel open source graphics are not completely open, they have some
binaries for functions like Macrovision.

And I'm not trying to say here, that suse or kernel developers must add
ati's and nvidia drivers in the kernel, I understand why they can't and
don't want to do that, but if you are waiting to ATI or nvidia to open their
drivers, then i hope you have a really long life to make the waiting.



I have heard that Intel 3D drivers can be used without the proprietary parts.
Is this going to be included in openSUSE ? Or is this already included
in alpha 4 ?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-08 Thread Philipp Thomas

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 10:59:16 -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:

not the same directory but the same server and i repeat, that this
theory same server = distribution is new to me.

It doesn't matter *where* you provide it to the public, it's *who*
does it that is important. 

i have to add, that SLED 10, have a botton in the desktop to install XGL,
this script also install nvidia or ati propietary drivers if is it necesary,
i'm sure is a mistake and you are going to elimate this script or fase the
legal consequences.

Why should we? The script downloads the driver from Nvidias or ATI's
site, that's a totally different thing.

Philipp
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-08 Thread Rajko M

Matthias Hopf wrote:
 On Sep 05, 06 19:34:36 -0500, Rajko M wrote:
 The only thing that we can do is to accept their decision, include such
 hardware in Linux Incompatible list, and advertise that list all over
 the place, to prevent people from buying a lemon.
 
 And prevent many users from actually using Linux at all, because there
 is *no* really fast 3D hardware with OS drivers.
 
 It's not so simple.

It Matthias.
If we start to run to get more users as the only goal that we going to
loose even existing base. Linux picks up computer users that know for
sure that they don't want what is offered in other environments.

One of don't like is what you mentioned in another post
 There are no specs, so they cannot be published.
 
 Release cycles are too fast, there is no documentation even within ATI
 or NVIDIA.

That is the same as there is airplane without plans. Do you need this in
Linux?

Open source has problems with documentation too, but at least, the
ultimate specification, source code is open, so you can compare to the
real world.

Once upon a time computer did exactly what is specified. If not vendor
was laughed out like an incompetent bunch of amateurs. No one wanted
such reputation because it meant no customers.

You can imagine how sounds it is normal that first released version is
buggy. If first is buggy, and release cycles are so fast, what version
will have no bugs? The one that is not released?

While for multimedia computers some bugs are not important, for computer
 as machine that is meant to compute exact values, almost any bug is
important. It indicates that program is not properly tested, and user
can't trust that it will perform as designed in important functions.

-- 
Regards,
Rajko.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-07 Thread T. Lodewick

Marcel Mourguiart schrieb:

 [to mutch to repeat here]
 


so, at all:
if you like to way Debian handles all that closed-source driver-stuff,
and you don't like the way openSUSE / Novell goes - why the hell are u
using it ? why not get the Debian-distro, use it, and leave others that
try to do the open-source  law-conform way allone ?

and if your new Dedian-system is up and running, just use your favorite
searchengine and have a look into the mailinglists of kernel.org. just
look how often there are discussion about the GPL, binary drivers, and
how to take steps against anything that is in conflict with the GPL.

I normaly have big respect of other people mind. I can understand that
poeple sometimes think that all this GPL -- OSS -- CS is bullshit
because it is not allways userfriendly. but at the same time I
understand the programmers that use the GPL as licence. what each
individual user is makeing on his owen desktop / server / network doen't
matter because it is his / here owen decision.
asking one or two times on a list or at a forum why something is handled
like the way it is is OK, but rumbling on the nerves of others when it
is not the way you like is more then unfriendly.

(but still) with regards,
JBScout aka Thomy

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-07 Thread Rebecca J. Walter


 3. If SUSE/Novell don't want to put nvidia dirvers in the server is ok to
 me, but if they say they _can't because is agains the gpl then i'll
 desagree.

The GPL violation has nothing to do with what server it is placed on.  The 
entire point is that using the drivers is a violation of the GPL.  By 
distributing them, Novell would be violating the GPL and supporting violation 
of the GPL.  For obvious reasons, this isn't something the company wants to 
do.  What you want to do is your problem and you'll have to face the legal 
consequences.


Rebecca

---

Note that these are my opinions and not necessarily those of my employer.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-07 Thread T. Lodewick

Marcel Mourguiart schrieb:

 first of all: What i never says is that SUSE must put binary drivers
 together with the kernel, i understand why they can't do that and I'm
 pretty
 agree with that too, i just saying they can put it in the same server,
 which
 according to me is not against GPL.

thats _your_ according - but not Novells. there are already a few
statements here on the list from Novell / Suse showing a) the point of
view of Novell / Suse and b) saying that they are on working for some
more userfriendly ways together with developer and hardware vendors ( in
this case with nVidia, as I remember ).

 
 now answering yours .. questions ?
 
 1. Because I'm a suser since 6 years know, i like suse and i think is the
 best distro out there.
 
 2. I have read some of those discussions and i agree to don't put binary
 drivers together with the kernel source, but put it in the same server is
 just something completely different

again thats _your_ according. not that of Novell / Suse as also other
members of the list. and - and thats importend - in point of view of
some courts in some countries ( in USA and germany, for example: in both
countries the courts agreed against some hardware vendors that there
closed-source-drivers violaited the GPL. so if they do, there should no
legal way to offer them [kernel + driver] together. and it mid not your
view that offering a distro [with kernel] in one folder of a server and
closed-source-drivers in another folder is the same - but for the courts
it is.)

 
 3. If SUSE/Novell don't want to put nvidia dirvers in the server is ok to
 me, but if they say they _can't because is agains the gpl then i'll
 desagree.

OK then - you said that often. we have read it. we accept that. now
accept that other people think another way.

 
 If i'm wrong, then suse server, kernel server, debian, ubuntu, mandriva,
 ibiblio, etc etc etc are against the GPL because all this servers have the
 kernel and _non-free_ kernel modules in the same server ... not the same
 directory but the same server and i repeat, that this theory same server =
 distribution is new to me.
 

ok, a little more theorie then:

LAW works on the way, that there must be soneone has to get to the
courts when he think someone or something hit his licence. this way it
needs that _every_ holder of the licince has to fight against every
violation. as you mid see: that is time consuming, money consuming. but
thats the way LAW works.
not every developer that is involved in the kernel, the modules etc.
think about that way. there are a lot of discussions on the mailinglist
about that topic. while some developers accept that there are
closed-source-drivers, there are others that don't.

same server = distro:
the view of the courts ( in a realy short way ! ): if you offer access
to a product A with licennce LIC_A and you offer also access to a
product B that can only run on top of product A but hits the licence
LIC_A you are violaiting the LIC_A. so it is the right of the holder of
licence LIC_A that you don't offer access to both products A and B. it
doesn't matter if you build both from source, or only one of source and
offer the other only as binary or both binary or ony other combination.
and it doesn't matter how to grand the access - on a media like CD / DVD
or via internet etc.

listing distros that offers closed-source-drivers tha way you said:
as already written here, it doesn't matter if others are doing so. and
it even doesn't matter if it is userfriendly or unfriendly.
as someone from the developers on the kernel.org-mailinglist has written
some times ago: if that means that there will be no big step for linux
to the desktop for the mass then it will so. they don't fight against a
company in redmond, but for a free and open sourced alternative
operation system. *thats* why so many use linux. not only to have an
alternative to windows.

if thats not all your view - thats OK. no one will say to you what you
have to do or not. your PC - your choice. but please do the same the
other way to other people and other companys that don't have your view.
I think thats fair.

and before beginning the discussion over and over again: maybe its time
to think about a real short way: just ask on the list if there are any
news about the situation. then a representive can say if it is, or if it
is not. ( don't misunderstand me - discussions are importend. but at
some point you have to see how things will go, and you have to wait some
time so that others can work on it. ).

so far, best regards,
JBScout aka Thomy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-07 Thread Marcel Mourguiart

2006/9/7, T. Lodewick [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...if thats not all your view - thats OK. no one will say to you what youhave to do or not. your PC - your choice. but please do the same theother way to other people and other companys that don't have your view.
I think thats fair.and before beginning the discussion over and over again: maybe its timeto think about a real short way: just ask on the list if there are anynews about the situation. then a representive can say if it is, or if it
is not. ( don't misunderstand me - discussions are importend. but atsome point you have to see how things will go, and you have to wait sometime so that others can work on it. ).Ok, i think my point is clear and don't need new clarification, I'm still disagree with you, but there is no misunderstood, just different interpretation so personally i don't see any point to continue the discussion. Thanks to respond in respectable way.
Best regards-- Marcel Mourguiart

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-07 Thread Boyd Lynn Gerber

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:
 2006/9/7, Rebecca J. Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Ok, Rebecca so  i was wrong  and  putting the driver in the same  server is
 a violation of GPL licence ... then  again:

 suse server, kernel server, debian, ubuntu, mandriva, linspire, ibiblio, etc
 etc etc are against the GPL because all this servers/distros have the kernel
 and _non-free_ kernel modules in the same server ... not the same directory
 but the same server and i repeat, that this theory same server =
 distribution is new to me.

I think you are not understanding the issue.  The problem is as a
distribution they can not be included.  Novell made a choice!  SUSE
versions prior to the current... had a lot of tailored kernels.  Recently
the kernel people stopped support for anything non GPL.  Since that time
every distribution with newer kernels had to make a choice.  Either accept
and honor the GPL or assume the responibility of possible legal
ramifications.  What Novell choose was to place the burden on the Hardware
People where it rightfully should be as you agree.

 funny no body have say nothing about this massive gpl violations.

The problem is hosting the driver implies distribution.

 i have to add, that SLED 10, have a botton in the desktop to install XGL,
 this script also install nvidia or ati propietary drivers if is it necesary,
 i'm sure is a mistake and you are going to elimate this script or fase the
 legal consequences.

They go out and download the driver from the vendor sites.  That is
different than hosting it.  Novell is working on solutions to the issuses.
It takes time.  Watch what happens.


--
Boyd Gerber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZENEZ   1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah  84047
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-07 Thread T. Lodewick

Marcel Mourguiart schrieb:

 [...]
 
 
 Ok, i think my point  is clear and don't need new clarification, I'm still
 disagree with you, but there is no misunderstood, just different
 interpretation so personally i don't see any point to continue the
 discussion. Thanks to respond in respectable way.
 
 Best regards
 

you'r welcome .

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-07 Thread Boyd Lynn Gerber

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, T. Lodewick wrote:
 and before beginning the discussion over and over again: maybe its time
 to think about a real short way: just ask on the list if there are any
 news about the situation. then a representive can say if it is, or if it
 is not. ( don't misunderstand me - discussions are importend. but at
 some point you have to see how things will go, and you have to wait some
 time so that others can work on it. ).

Also On the link...  The people are choosing to get the driver, they are
not getting it from Novell.  So the people who have the burden are the
individual and the Hardware ...  Not Novell.  Novell is doing what they
think is best for them.  Asking what we can do to assist with their
efforts might be more valueable, than beating the dead horse.  Slang for
going over it all again.

Maybe a more pro-active ... with the Hardware ...


--
Boyd Gerber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZENEZ   1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah  84047
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-07 Thread Andreas Jaeger


My *personal* opinion on these drivers is explained here:

http://www.novell.com/coolblogs/?p=489

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.suse.de/~aj/
  SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126


pgpYrBZluYXNV.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-07 Thread Marcel Mourguiart

2006/9/7, Andreas Jaeger [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
My *personal* opinion on these drivers is explained here:http://www.novell.com/coolblogs/?p=489There is something i have read here a lot, people looks very concern what are the kernel developers opinion about including or not, non-free modules in the kernel, i don't really understand why that's important, from my point of view their opinion is just irrelevant what really cares is what GPL says and from that's point of view the opinion from a lawyer or a judge is much more relevant, people can't just go and ask every single developer what the GPL means to him, that's the main reason to have a unify licence in first place ( and I'm not saying my point of view is the right one ).
The developers point of view, make people don't see the complete scenario some time ( or maybe is me, i don't know ), for example when i read kororaa argument about Kororaa Accused of Violating GPL
 http://kororaa.org/index.php?entry=entry060512-160752You can see that they said that nvidia drivers have a GPL open source shim and a binary part, the shim is the part that is linked to the kernel, not the binary part, so they don't brake the GPL.
... but the shim is GPL too !! and from my point of view, is just doesn't matter if nvidia is ok or not to link this shim with a binary, they just can't because is GPL, he's binary is braking the GPL from their owns shim.
So from those point of view, i don't really care what kernel developers have to says about it, they are developers, not lawyers.-- Marcel Mourguiart

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-07 Thread B . Weber

 ... but the shim is GPL too !! and from my point of view, is just doesn't
 matter if nvidia is ok or not to link this shim with a binary, they
just can't because is GPL, he's binary is braking the GPL from their
owns shim.

This is what I thought the situation was, and indeed it would be if the
shim were GPL. However, on looking at the provided source to nvidia's
shim, and the kernel module it installs it's clear that despite the source
being available it is not GPLed. The source states it is under nvidia's
own licence, and the kernel module.

/lib/modules/2.6.16.21-0.8-default/updates strings nvidia.ko | grep
license license=NVIDIA

and from the source:

/* _NVRM_COPYRIGHT_BEGIN_
 *
 * Copyright 2001 by NVIDIA Corporation.  All rights reserved.  All *
information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to NVIDIA *
Corporation.  Any use, reproduction, or disclosure without the written *
permission of NVIDIA Corporation is prohibited.
 *
 * _NVRM_COPYRIGHT_END_
 */

No mention of GPL anywhere for the kernel module source, whereas the
nvidia-settings and nvidia-installer which are GPLed are clearly stated as
being GPLed.

benji


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-06 Thread Carl-Daniel Hailfinger

Marcus Meissner wrote:
 Read Al Viros essay on this topic. (nightmare before christmas or so)

Arjan van de Ven has written an essay which may be the one you're referring
to. http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0512.0/0972.html

Regards,
Carl-Daniel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-05 Thread Bernhard Walle

Hello,

* Robert Schiele [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-09-05 01:01]:
 Your only chance to improve this situation is to force the hardware vendors to
 provide open specs or drivers. If you don't have the power to do so, you lost
 in the first place.

Well, and what is if the hardware vendor develops _no_ driver at all
for Linux after that?


Regards,
  Bernhard
-- 
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
[Unsinn]
-- Melchior Franz in suse-linux


pgpHw9ptpPNkb.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-05 Thread Dominique Leuenberger

 Bernhard Walle [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/05/06 12:00 PM 
Hello,

* Robert Schiele [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-09-05 01:01]:
 Your only chance to improve this situation is to force the hardware
vendors to
 provide open specs or drivers. If you don't have the power to do so,
you lost
 in the first place.

Well, and what is if the hardware vendor develops _no_ driver at all
for Linux after that?

To be honest, I understand the point of the kernel development team but
I also understand the hardware vendors not being willing to open their
sources.

Nevertheless, I'm trying to find a solution suitable for the user (if
the kernel maintainers have a problem with legal issues on the nvidia
drivers, THEY should sue them). I think WE of the opensuse.org project
should focus on our users and to make it conveniant for them.
Novell takes somewhat a strange position in this game, as they released
RPMs for SLE{D,S}, which luckily work with SuSE Linux 10.1 (even though
it's not the ACTUAL driver anymore). But they're NOT willing to create
new RPMs for openSUSE nor are there RPMs with the actual driver.

I think, while focusing on the END-USER, I'll just start to create these
RPMs by myself; I guess the .spec file of the released RPMs is
available? Up to now I have NO CLUE how to make an RPM, but I have
experiance in software packaging in general and I don't see an RPM as
something different; so most probable I'll figure out how to do it.
Remains only one problem: In best case I can compile and test packages
for x86_64, as that's what I'm running myself. Others will be
compilable, but I could not test them. Will this be a problem?

Could anyone give me some indications on how to process creating such an
RPM? I'd take care of all sort of updates (be it new release of nVidia
Driver and/or new Kernel's from openSUSE, which require the kernel
module to be recompiled).

Thank you for all the valued help. 

Dominique


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-05 Thread Bernhard Walle

Hello,

* Dominique Leuenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-09-05 11:47]:
 Nevertheless, I'm trying to find a solution suitable for the user (if
 the kernel maintainers have a problem with legal issues on the nvidia
 drivers, THEY should sue them). I think WE of the opensuse.org project
 should focus on our users and to make it conveniant for them.
 Novell takes somewhat a strange position in this game, as they released
 RPMs for SLE{D,S}, which luckily work with SuSE Linux 10.1 (even though
 it's not the ACTUAL driver anymore). But they're NOT willing to create
 new RPMs for openSUSE nor are there RPMs with the actual driver.

The RPMs for SLES are hosted by nvidia, not by Novell. Don't know who
builds them, but that's irrelevant.


Regards,
  Bernhard
-- 
* Linux Viruscan.
  Windows 95 found.  Remove it? (y/n)


pgpyvNW9eDK1k.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-05 Thread Dominique Leuenberger

 Bernhard Walle [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/05/06 1:56 PM 
Hello,

* Dominique Leuenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[2006-09-05 11:47]:
 Nevertheless, I'm trying to find a solution suitable for the user (if
 the kernel maintainers have a problem with legal issues on the nvidia
 drivers, THEY should sue them). I think WE of the opensuse.org
project
 should focus on our users and to make it conveniant for them.
 Novell takes somewhat a strange position in this game, as they
released
 RPMs for SLE{D,S}, which luckily work with SuSE Linux 10.1 (even
though
 it's not the ACTUAL driver anymore). But they're NOT willing to
create
 new RPMs for openSUSE nor are there RPMs with the actual driver.

The RPMs for SLES are hosted by nvidia, not by Novell. Don't know who
builds them, but that's irrelevant.

According nVidia, they were built by Novell (see the first mail in this
thread)
But as you said, it's irrelevant, especially for the solution approach I
have. I just need the requested help.

Dominique
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-05 Thread Dominique Leuenberger

 Robert Schiele [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/05/06 2:40 PM 
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:47:48AM +0200, Dominique Leuenberger wrote:
  Bernhard Walle [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/05/06 12:00 PM 
 should focus on our users and to make it conveniant for them.
 Novell takes somewhat a strange position in this game, as they
released
 RPMs for SLE{D,S}, which luckily work with SuSE Linux 10.1 (even
though

They did not.  The release is actually done by the respective hardware
vendors.  Novell does only give technical advice.  That way the
hardware
vendor is the one that takes the major risk to being sued.

Yes! Go through the archive and you'll find the first post of me to
start this thread. I started it after discussion with nVidia; They HOST
the packages on their server, but the package came by Novell!

Why is everybody just pointing the ball around? Sure, it's easy to say:
if the vendor doesn't create drivers, don't buy their hardware. Then
PLEASE: What graphic card would you suggest at the moment to have full
native 3D support? If this Opensource community is that strong, why is
the nvidia driver not capable of 3D? Because they feel there is another
driver from nVidia? But still they feel that this one does not suit the
needs? That's just bul

Don't forget: Linux needs the support from Hardware vendors to be
successful on the desktop (as well as on the server, but there at least
graphic is less an issue... YET). I agree, it's good to have the kernel
drivers open, for security revious and development. There's no question
in this. 

Dominique

PS: please forgive me if I start to sound a bit angry, but this
situation MAKES me angry.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 02:01:26PM +0200, Dominique Leuenberger wrote:
 Yes! Go through the archive and you'll find the first post of me to
 start this thread. I started it after discussion with nVidia; They HOST
 the packages on their server, but the package came by Novell!

So what?  They host the drivers and thus take the major legal risk.  So be
happy with it.  What is your problem with that?  In your initial posting you
wanted to have them on the build service.  Why do you want Novell to take a
legal risk, nVidia earns money with?

 Why is everybody just pointing the ball around? Sure, it's easy to say:

Nobody is pointing anything around.  Everybody is just providing for free what
they are willing to provide.  It's just _you_ that is crying for having more
for free.  If you want that, then provide it. --- And take the legal risk to
be sued.

 if the vendor doesn't create drivers, don't buy their hardware. Then
 PLEASE: What graphic card would you suggest at the moment to have full
 native 3D support? If this Opensource community is that strong, why is

It is neither mine not any kernel developer's job to suggest you anything
convenient.  Fighting for something does not mean sitting back and waiting for
a convenient solution for everything but it often means to handle some
annoyances.

 the nvidia driver not capable of 3D? Because they feel there is another
 driver from nVidia? But still they feel that this one does not suit the
 needs? That's just bul

You just don't get it.  Those people that are _willing_  to provide open
source drivers neither get valuable feedback from most users, nor get they
support from the hardware vendors as long as a binary-only driver is around
that lazy users just have to install and do no longer care.

 Don't forget: Linux needs the support from Hardware vendors to be
 successful on the desktop (as well as on the server, but there at least

So you think the major goal of the kernel developers is to make Linux
successful on the desktop ignoring all other goals?  Well, I guess you have to
learn that you are wrong.  If you just want something that is successful on
the desktop then use Windows.

 graphic is less an issue... YET). I agree, it's good to have the kernel
 drivers open, for security revious and development. There's no question
 in this. 

So what is the advantage of Linux then if you easily give up its major
advantage, namely being open-source?

 PS: please forgive me if I start to sound a bit angry, but this
 situation MAKES me angry.

Feel free to be in any mood you like, although this will not change the
situation.  If you want to change it, you have to _do_ the change, handling
all the consequences that come with that.

Robert

-- 
Robert Schiele
Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.


pgpBXVwFp6ADs.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

So what is the advantage of Linux then if you easily give up its majoradvantage, namely being open-source?
Try to name one linux distribution with only free open source software available, debian no, suse no, red hat no, ubuntu no ... So been not open source is not the issue, well then the problem is kernel is GPL and nvidia binarie driver is not ?? _That's mean you can't provide the nvidia driver with the kernel in the same media_, but not in the same server as a repositories ?? ... that's just ridiculous, there is just no legal issue there.
-- Marcel Mourguiart

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-05 Thread Greg DeKoenigsberg


On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Robert Schiele wrote:

 On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:25:46AM -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:
  
  So what is the advantage of Linux then if you easily give up its major
  advantage, namely being open-source?
  
  Try to name one linux distribution with only free open source software
  available, debian no, suse no, red hat no, ubuntu no ...

Fedora, yes.  Or at least we're getting there.

There's pain involved, by the way.  Some members of the Fedora 
community don't agree with our stand.  But we think it's worth it.

If you want to follow the conversation:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.maintainers/2559

--g
 
-
Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org
Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors
-


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-05 Thread Marcus Meissner

On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:34:36PM -0700, J Sloan wrote:
 Robert Schiele wrote:
 
  So what is the advantage of Linux then if you easily give up its major
  advantage, namely being open-source?
 
 The advantage is that linux is a modern, robust, full-featured unix
 variant. It's stable, and performs well, and is amazingly useful in
 diverse situations. It's a great application platform, embedded server,
 or power user desktop. I use a suse desktop for gaming/multimedia as
 well as work related tasks.
 
 The fact that it's open source is a bug plus, but there are rapidly
 decreasing benefits to the insistence that no closed source software be
 allowed to interoperate with the kernel. I'm not ready to say goodbye to
 sexy video drivers and great video performance, trading them in for a
 clunky, sluggish desktop experience, all in the name of keeping the evil
 closed source drivers out.
 
 I just want things to work, and I think most computer users feel the
 same way. and in linux all things should work *at least* as well as in
 windows, if not a lot better.

Read Al Viros essay on this topic. (nightmare before christmas or so)

Linux worked fine without binary kernel drivers too, even in the desktop
space. MGA G400 ruled then.

Ciao, Marcus
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 03:22:47PM -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:
Wrong, all have non-free software in there servers ALL, one thing is to put
non-free software on your media ( CDs, DVDs, etc ) and a completely
different thing is to put it in your server as a depositary.

You are still talking crap. It does not matter _how_ you distribute software
that violates a license, just the fact that you distribute it makes the
violation.

Sure there are commercial add-ons for these distributions. As long as these
commercial add-ons do not violate a license this is legal but if they _do_
violate a license this is no longer legal and this is what we where talking
about.

No, but you can't put a non-free drivers with a GPL kernel, that's in
conflict with GPL licence.

Hey, you finally got it! Now you only have to make one final conclusion to
find that binary-only kernel drivers are illegal. I still have some hope left
that you will make this.

Ok, so illuminate me, why you can't put non-free drivers in the same server
as a depositary ??

If you in return explain me what a depositary is in this context.

What about this ??
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-drivers/nvidia-glx_1.0.8774-2_i386.deb
Is against GPL ??

No, because it does not include the violating kernel module at all.

And what about this:
http://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/10.0/inst-source-extra/suse/i586/km_smartlink-softmodem-2.9.10-17.i586.rpm
Is against GPL too ??

Yes. Didn't you read the discussions on this list some time before 10.1 was
released?

If you want to keep your server with only free-software that's ok, but don't
can a say a lie like you can't put the nvidia driver in your server becouse
is agains GPL, that's just a lie.

I can just repeat: Get a clue!

Robert

--
Robert Schiele
Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

pgpdJuFdAit4V.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006/9/5, Robert Schiele [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 03:22:47PM -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote: Wrong, all have non-free software in there servers ALL, one thing is to put non-free software on your media ( CDs, DVDs, etc ) and a completely
 different thing is to put it in your server as a depositary.You are still talking crap.It does not matter _how_ you distribute softwarethat violates a license, just the fact that you distribute it makes the
violation.Sure there are commercial add-ons for these distributions.As long as thesecommercial add-ons do not violate a license this is legal but if they _do_violate a license this is no longer legal and this is what we where talking
about. No, butyou can't put a non-free drivers with a GPL kernel, that's in conflict with GPL licence.Hey, you finally got it!Now you only have to make one final conclusion tofind that binary-only kernel drivers are illegal.I still have some hope left
that you will make this.Know, try to think a little before you ownser, if i'm saying that, why i repeating that you CAN put non-free software on your _server_ , not your cd's, not your dvd's but your **server**
 Ok, so illuminate me, why you can't put non-free drivers in the same server
 as a depositary ??If you in return explain me what a depositary is in this context.I mean repository, my english is not that good.
 What about this ?? http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-drivers/nvidia-glx_1.0.8774-2_i386.deb
 Is against GPL ??No, because it does not include the violating kernel module at all.Take a better look:
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-drivers/  And what about this:
 http://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/10.0/inst-source-extra/suse/i586/km_smartlink-softmodem-2.9.10-17.i586.rpm
 Is against GPL too ??Yes.Didn't you read the discussions on this list some time before 10.1 wasreleased?So you fix it before 10.1 ?? and what is this:
http://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/10.1/inst-source-extra/suse/i586/http://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/10.1/SUSE-Linux10.1-GM-Extra/suse/i586/
Why can't be there nvidia drivers ?? If you want to keep your server with only free-software that's ok, but don't
 can a say a lie like you can't put the nvidia driver in your server becouse is agains GPL, that's just a lie.I can just repeat: Get a clue!Ok, sorry i'm probably stupid, but again just in case you did't see it here are non-free kernel modules in:
suse 10:http://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/10.0/inst-source-extra/suse/i586/km_smartlink-softmodem-2.9.10-17.i586.rpm
suse 10.1http://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/10.1/SUSE-Linux10.1-GM-Extra/suse/i586/smartlink-softmodem-kmp-default-2.9.10_2.6.16.13_4-44.i586.rpm
So know, again, why the smartlink kernel module is fine, but the nvidia driver is wrong ??-- Marcel Mourguiart

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006/9/5, Robert Schiele [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 04:22:24PM -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote: Know, try to think a little before you ownser, if i'm saying that, why i repeating that you CAN put non-free software on your _server_ , not your
 cd's, not your dvd's but your **server**It does not matter whether you distribute stuff that violates licenses onmedia kits or on a server, even if you repeat this false statement a hundredtimes.
What i repeat a hundred times if is necessary , is that have the nvidia driver in the same server is not the same to have it together and _linked_ with the kernel, nvidia drivers are not _illegal by it self, is illegal to distribute this driver all together with the kernel.
By the way, in Suse SLED 10 if push the botton in your desktop to install GLX and you have a nvidia card, the program install the nvidia driver ... is the illegal too ?
 Ok, so illuminate me, why you can't put non-free drivers in the same server  as a depositary ??  If you in return explain me what a depositary is in this context.
 I mean repository, my english is not that good.Ok, then the answer is: _Technically_ you can do this with illegal kernelmodules (or other software violating a license) but it is _illegal_.
So please call the kernel developers too, because the _illegal_ software is in that server too:
http://mirrors.kernel.org/suse/i386/10.1/inst-source-extra/suse/i586/smartlink-softmodem-kmp-default-2.9.10_2.6.16.13_4-44.i586.rpm
http://mirrors.kernel.org/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-modules-i386/Incredible, Linux kernel just have violate the GPL !! This gonna be a fantastic inquirer story.-- Marcel Mourguiart

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:29:22PM -0400, Marcel Mourguiart wrote:
What i repeat a hundred times if is necessary , is that have the nvidia
driver in the same server is not the same to have it together and _linked_
with the kernel, nvidia drivers are not _illegal by it self, is illegal to
distribute this driver all together with the kernel.

And how do you build kernel modules without including the kernel headers? Do
a favour for yourself, buy a book about C programming and learn some basics or
just stop talking about stuff you don't understand. If you do neither of what
I suggested here I will stop discussing this topic with you now because I have
given up that you will ever get it.

By the way, in Suse SLED 10 if push the botton in your desktop to install
GLX and you have a nvidia card, the program install the nvidia driver ... is
the illegal too ?

I am not sure about that. I'd recommend you ask a lawyer for that question.

So please call the kernel developers too, because the _illegal_ software is
in that server too:

http://mirrors.kernel.org/suse/i386/10.1/inst-source-extra/suse/i586/smartlink-softmodem-kmp-default-2.9.10_2.6.16.13_4-44.i586.rpm
http://mirrors.kernel.org/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-modules-i386/

1. mirrors.kernel.org is not the kernel developers.

2. You still failed to show which package in
.../debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-modules-i386/ does include the
nVidia kernel binary module.

3. I already tried you to explain to you that you cannot argue that something
is legal just because others do it but it seems you just don't get that.

Robert

--
Robert Schiele
Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

pgpKWVlTu2Zfs.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-05 Thread Bernhard Walle

* Robert Schiele [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-09-05 23:52]:
 2. You still failed to show which package in
.../debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-modules-i386/ does include the
nVidia kernel binary module.

What about nvidia-kernel-2.6.~0.8762+1_i386.deb?



Regards,
  Bernhard
-- 
Die, die ihre Kinder nicht säugen, weil das für die Mutter 
Tierquälerei wäre.
-- Wau Holland


pgpVtnZJWCsF4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

2006-09-05 Thread J Sloan

Marcus Meissner wrote:

 Read Al Viros essay on this topic. (nightmare before christmas or so)

I'll google it -

 Linux worked fine without binary kernel drivers too, even in the desktop
 space. MGA G400 ruled then.

But of course! I was one of the first people to buy a 3dfx video card
back in the day - the voodoo graphix which was the earliest affordable
2d/3d cards, and the in-kernel DRI drivers worked like a champ, no
question about it.

The landscape has changed around us. Alas, 3dfx is no more, and voodoo
graphix cards are getting hard to find. The ati cards with the DRI
drivers were always a quick way to lock up the system hard, and I hear
that very little has changed on that score.

There are few viable alternatives for linux users who need good video
performance nowadays. Either you go with nvidia proprietary drivers,
which some people object to on religious grounds, but which are indeed
fast, stable drivers, or you go with ATI proprietary, which has all the
drawbacks of nvidia without the great linux support or quite the same
performance, or you go with one of the few video chipsets having full
featured OSS drivers  - at this point Intel is a promising choice, but
that will become clearer as time goes by...


Joe
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)

On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:58:19PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
 * Robert Schiele [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-09-05 23:52]:
  2. You still failed to show which package in
 .../debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-modules-i386/ does include the
 nVidia kernel binary module.
 
 What about nvidia-kernel-2.6.~0.8762+1_i386.deb?

That's right.  There it is.  I would not do that.

Robert

-- 
Robert Schiele
Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.


pgpKo4PR6dRD3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [opensuse] Fw: Driver Repository for openSUSE / SuSE Linux Enterprise (nVidia)