5 ms·

more likely: IP encumbrances in code (or specifications) that they've licensed (or licensed access to).

• cookiecaper 13y ago
  This is the story they always use when asked. They claim that the board contains proprietary components licensed from third parties, and that it would violate their licensing agreement if the code pertaining to those components was released. This is a very convenient PR move because it shifts all the blame onto groups of unnamed entities, and tends to place the burden on the open-source advocate to get all of these unnamed entities to modify their licensing agreements.
  • rosser 13y ago
    And that makes it untrue ... how, again?
    • joosters 13y ago
      No-one said it was outright untrue, but neither has any company ever detailed which 3rd parties are responsible, so there's no way of finding out just how big a problem it really is.
    • takluyver 13y ago
      The grandparent post doesn't say that the story is untrue. It implies a certain amount of scepticism, which is probably warranted: Nvidia must have some amount of leverage to negotiate such terms with its suppliers, so if such terms do exist, it's because Nvidia has accepted them. Of course there are other factors they have to consider in those agreements, but that's a more complex story.
    • cookiecaper 13y ago
      As the others said, it's not that it's necessarily factually untrue, it's just a cop out. If the company cares about open-source, they can neogiate with suppliers directly and refuse to use components with incompatible licensing agreements. The party line statement is structured to make nVidia appear helpless and as if the burden is upon the open-source advocate to get the component vendors to allow their code to go open, but this is not correct. If nVidia cared about open-source, they'd use their clout to make sure they got what they wanted.