On the other hand...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Mar 31, 2008 7:40 AM EDT |
While I have NO problem with people turning their back on Creative, a well-deserved fate, a couple of things should be kept in mind: 1. He was distributing Creative software -- he modded drivers, he didn't write his own from the ground up 2. He was asking money for it. They have a genuine IP issue with him. If you believe that companies (like Microsoft) must respect the GPL, you must accept that other licenses also deserve respect. Creative, on the other hand, deserves no respect whatsoever. A pox on their house. The last Creative product I got came in a tossaway computer somebody gave me. I tossed away the card. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 31, 2008 7:58 AM EDT |
From what I gather, Daniel_K asked for donations to support efforts (like many FOSS projects do) but wasn't asking for money in return for the driver directly. You could download it regardless. But this has no impact on the IP issues. Money or no money, the IP issue would be the same.Quoting:1. He was distributing Creative software -- he modded drivers, he didn't write his own from the ground up. They have a genuine IP issue with him. From what I gathered from the thread (I didn't read all 200 pages mind you :-), the main IP issue is Creative's, who apparently licensed some fancy audio technology only for Windows XP. The IP holder of that fancy tech gave someone else an exclusive Vista license. Hence Creative crippling their Vista driver to disable those features. |
| jdixon Mar 31, 2008 8:03 AM EDT |
> They have a genuine IP issue with him. They would have a genuine IP issue even if he wasn't asking for money. but they might be willing to ignore it in that case. He should take the open source drivers (preferably BSD ones, so he could keep his improvements), rework them for Windows and improve them in the process. Then Creative wouldn't have a leg to stand on. |
| gus3 Mar 31, 2008 8:28 AM EDT |
Quoting:Hence Creative crippling their Vista driver to disable those features.If I'm understanding correctly, Creative disabled, but did not remove, the code for the features in question. That would be a rather bone-headed move on their part, I think. If all Daniel_K needed to do was "flip a switch" in the software, then this goes even deeper to the matter of software patents and "IP" in general: http://gus3.typepad.com/i_am_therefore_i_think/2008/03/why-n... |
| jdixon Mar 31, 2008 9:01 AM EDT |
> If all Daniel_K needed to do was "flip a switch" in the software, Then he should release a separate program to do so and not distribute the drivers at all. |
| dinotrac Mar 31, 2008 9:15 AM EDT |
>Then he should release a separate program to do so and not distribute the drivers at all. Yup. It might still expose him to threats under DMCA, but that seems a little horsey. |
| tuxchick Mar 31, 2008 10:25 AM EDT |
This shows the ridiculousness of the whole concept of "intellectual property," which is based on taking away the very-long established principle of first sale. You can legally mod and resell all kinds of products. For example, there is a huge aftermarket automobile modding industry, where shops take stock vehicles and hot them up in all kinds of interesting ways. You could do this with any product- toasters, bath towels, bagels, anything at all. You can even do it with books, music, and movies. Weird Al Yankovic has made his whole career parodying other people's songs. The National Lampoon parodies everything. There hasn't been an original plot or storyline since Shakespeare- they're recycled endlessly. If books and movies were software, you would have to pay license fees to someone for "boy meets girl" plots. It's insane. Creative is being very stupid; they already got paid, and all Daniel K is doing is making their sucky products usable. |
| dinotrac Mar 31, 2008 10:50 AM EDT |
TC - You are very close to correct, but this case is a little bit different from that. Daniel_K was distributing Creative's software. Had he just distributed patches, you would be spot on. If he had purchased one copy and distributed one copy, you would also be spot on. At any rate, the big issue on this is that Creative is not merely a crappy vendor, but a stupid one. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 31, 2008 11:21 AM EDT |
Quoting:If I'm understanding correctly, Creative disabled, but did not remove, the code for the features in question. That would be a rather bone-headed move on their part, I think. I'm not deep enough into it technically, but this is what I think as well. I read a response from Daniel to a user who complained about cracking and popping sound, even with the patched driver. Daniel blamed it on the DRM path in the driver. So I'm assuming he's patching Vista drivers for his work and nog e.g. patch XP drivers to work on Vista. |
| thenixedreport Mar 31, 2008 6:21 PM EDT |
Dino, Just for clarification. Daniel_K was going to use the donations to acquire more Creative cards so he could test his modifications to make sure everything worked. At least, that's what I got out of the whole thing. This thing has spread like wildfire. I may give that one person who wrote the letter a call tomorrow (btw, I believe that info is publicly available anyway). If I get a chance, I'll let you know how it goes. |
| thenixedreport Mar 31, 2008 6:24 PM EDT |
Quoting:I'm not deep enough into it technically, but this is what I think as well. I read a response from Daniel to a user who complained about cracking and popping sound, even with the patched driver. Daniel blamed it on the DRM path in the driver. So I'm assuming he's patching Vista drivers for his work and nog e.g. patch XP drivers to work on Vista. I do remember reading something to that effect. This could very well prove Peter Gutman correct when he warned about the problems of Vista's DRM. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!