Yeah, it's always good to remember that project license != individual file license. Luckily there's an open source tool, which aims to help doing that inspection: http://sourceforge.net/projects/oslc

My theory (admittedly without evidence) is market segmentation, on both ATI's and NVidia's parts. It's something that has been done for years in the tech community, across many different kinds of products.

In effect, given the costs of production, it would be a lot cheaper for both ATI and NVidia to make a single GPU, and use binary drivers to enable/disable additional pipelines, texture processing units, etc, than it would be to actually make a series of different GPUs that have those capabilities. It wouldn't surprise me much at all that other than actual clock frequency & RAM speed, the only difference between the $100 cards and the $400 cards (assuming the same family of GPU) is an ID somewhere deep on the card that allows the driver to determine how many pipelines and additional features to enable. Consider this the difference between the 'student' and 'pro' versions. :)

In the whole argument here I see that Hollywood says that they need some kind of copy control or that otherwise everyone see/hear music/movie for free and therefore won't buy any CD/DVD any more.

The BIG question I have can Hollywood prove this claim? I read that at the hights of Napster the CD sales INCREASED! So this would prove that MP3 increase sales, so they sould encourige MP3 copy etc. But thats scary for big company's to think a la 'open source' (something for free can be worth something)

I also would like to see how the cost for creating a CD is. I would expect that the prices come down since the introduction, but they are stil as high! I think a very small % is for the original artist, the rest for a Hollywood company. Why not thing some kind of system that enables the consumer to download what he wants and that he pays what HE thinks what worth!