Usually this is done for licensing reasons. They probably don’t want the old code caught up in the open license they’re shipping the new driver under.
My understanding is that the new open driver separates proprietary code into a black box binary blob that isn’t distributed under an open source license. I’m guessing that they’ve been very careful not to include anything they want to keep closed into the new open driver, whereas the old driver wasn’t written with this separation in mind.
It’s not, they’re not open sourcing their driver. They’ve made an open source driver.
Is there a reason to reinvent the wheel?
Usually this is done for licensing reasons. They probably don’t want the old code caught up in the open license they’re shipping the new driver under.
My understanding is that the new open driver separates proprietary code into a black box binary blob that isn’t distributed under an open source license. I’m guessing that they’ve been very careful not to include anything they want to keep closed into the new open driver, whereas the old driver wasn’t written with this separation in mind.
I was wondering about what they were doing with their “secret sauce”, thanks for explaining.
Control, precedent, bean counter analysis etc. Pick your poison.
Some of it probably comes from other companies that are unable or unwilling to relicense it even if Nvidia wanted to