4 ms·
“The worst company to the open source” is a bold claim when there are thousands (millions?) of companies that don’t open source anything at all. Last time I ch
by TomVDB 8y ago
“The worst company to the open source” is a bold claim when there are thousands (millions?) of companies that don’t open source anything at all.
Last time I checked, Nvidia has quite a bit of open source software on GitHub.
Open sourcing something that you have developed and paid for(!) should always be at the discretion of those who did so.
- xvilka 8y agoIt is fine if company not open sources its products. It is not fine when it actively resists the attempts to write open source for their products, like nouveau drivers for example.
- TomVDB 8y agoHow does it actively resist? Did it send out C&D orders? How can it actively resist when it has released at least some useful pieces of information?
- xvilka 8y agoThey reluctantly provide signed firmware images, very often with significant delay.
- TomVDB 8y agoEven if they didn't provide signed firmware, they wouldn't be actively resisting anything. Actively resisting would require them to take actions to block developers from creating an open source driver. But as you admit: not only did they not actively resist, they actively helped out by providing something that they were under no obligation to provide. I don't think you have a clear understanding of what "the worst" and "actively" means. It's fine to be disappointed with a company deciding not to support open source in a way you'd like. But let's not go overboard with hyperbole? Have you ever complained about Microsoft not open sourcing the Office suite? About Oracle not open sourcing their crown jewels? About Apple not open sourcing iOS? About Broadcom not open sourcing the RPi drivers? And a million other companies, large and small, not open sourcing their money making products?