Is it wise to describe the drivers as simply non-free, this could make a user believe they need to pay to use the drivers would it not be better to say the drivers are not open source.
- I agree, Geniarse. Digiot 06:48, Apr 25, 2004 (EDT)
- The drivers also aren't strictly 'closed source', since there is also an open source (but non-free) wrapper around the kernel module :) I think non-free should also be mentioned like it was before, since that is what it is often called and also explained on the free page (maybe there should also be a non-free page). Jor 09:27, Apr 25, 2004 (EDT)
- I'm not so sure. We can mention that the drivers are closed source, but generally the reason they're not carried is that they're non free. It's difficult to really get the 'free' point across sometimes. When we say "but they are closed-source and, for this reason, most distributions install the open source 'nv' drivers after detecting an NVIDIA card" well, it depends on the distribution really, for some the reason is closed source, for others its because they are non-free. Maybe a term like FLOSS is needed? Future Leet 15:43 Apr 26, 2004 (GMT)
I think this should be more specific, since the link goes to page that only describes how to install NVIDIA *graphics* drivers.
I suggest it should be "Installing NVIDIA graphics drivers".
I tried to change it, but I don't know how to change the section name of the page it links to.