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