12 ms·

I don't buy it... You can easily ship a "plain vanilla" open source GPU driver separate from the proprietary "game optimizer" code, because the former doesn't

I don't buy it... You can easily ship a "plain vanilla" open source GPU driver separate from the proprietary "game optimizer" code, because the former doesn't block the availability of the latter. And if you suspect a GPU driver is cheating on a benchmark, or you have grounds to sue for IP/patent infringement, you don't need to have the source code for that. Any sufficiently motivated organization can verify that right now by disassembling the binary driver.

oakwhiz 10y ago
The real meaning behind patent infringement concerns is that the source code contains clues to the "secret sauce" that the binaries don't make readily accessible. So publishing the source is publishing the restricted IP. Whereas their license to use the IP allows publishing of the binaries.
- infodroid 10y ago
  There's no way to avoid giving away clues to "secret sauce" when releasing a driver, and keeping the source code closed doesn't change that. I don't see how the degree of accessibility is relevant. The fact is that clues to IP can't be removed when compiling the source to binary form, because implementation details can't be hidden. So the status quo is that they are already public. Granted, it takes more skill and patience to analyze the clues in this form, but any competent hacker can do it. And the absence of names and comments in the binary makes the job harder, but doesn't actually remove the significant clues. And while it's true that these drivers might be using licensed code, which restricts publication of its source code, this seems like a poor excuse for keeping all the code proprietary. The existence of licensed code doesn't block releasing the rest of the code. And I'm willing to bet there is an army of volunteers out there that is more than happy to write a clean room replacement for the licensed parts, if the vendor can't do it, given the opportunity.

oakwhiz 10y ago

The real meaning behind patent infringement concerns is that the source code contains clues to the "secret sauce" that the binaries don't make readily accessible. So publishing the source is publishing the restricted IP. Whereas their license to use the IP allows publishing of the binaries.

infodroid 10y ago
There's no way to avoid giving away clues to "secret sauce" when releasing a driver, and keeping the source code closed doesn't change that. I don't see how the degree of accessibility is relevant. The fact is that clues to IP can't be removed when compiling the source to binary form, because implementation details can't be hidden. So the status quo is that they are already public. Granted, it takes more skill and patience to analyze the clues in this form, but any competent hacker can do it. And the absence of names and comments in the binary makes the job harder, but doesn't actually remove the significant clues. And while it's true that these drivers might be using licensed code, which restricts publication of its source code, this seems like a poor excuse for keeping all the code proprietary. The existence of licensed code doesn't block releasing the rest of the code. And I'm willing to bet there is an army of volunteers out there that is more than happy to write a clean room replacement for the licensed parts, if the vendor can't do it, given the opportunity.