Creative GPLs X-Fi Sound Card Driver Code 369
An anonymous reader writes "In a move that's a win for the free software community, Creative Labs has decided to release their binary Linux driver for the Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi and X-Fi Titanium sound cards under the GPL license. This is coming after several failed attempts at delivering a working binary driver and years after these sound cards first hit the market."
Cool (Score:3, Funny)
What people will do with it is interesting (Score:3, Funny)
I gave up on their products so many years ago I had to look up what an X-Fi sound card was.
But yeah, cool.
At last! (Score:5, Funny)
This is great news! With proper sound card driver support maybe 2009 will finally be the year of the Linux desktop!
Re:At last! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:At last! (Score:5, Interesting)
While Ubuntu goes a long way to improving the user experience with Linux, even to get it to a 'standard' setup, I needed to use the console no less than 5 times.
Which "standard" issues required the console, if I may be so bold to ask?
Re:At last! (Score:5, Insightful)
The same kind that would require using REGEDIT on windows. Screw that troll, linux is as ready as any other consumer OS on the market. The consumer mass just been too much hammered into that win32 thinking shape.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
.
I doubt I've opened REGEDIT four times this year or twenty times over the life of XP.
I have yet to meet anyone other than the enthusiast or the pro who is genuinely comfortable editing configuration files.
The syntax is arcane - people fear the consequences of a typo. The experience has all the
Re:At last! (Score:5, Funny)
There's your problem you see. It should be user canal, and you sudo to get elevated privileges as and when needed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is unrelated to the parent however.
My Mum used to do data entry on punch card terminals (or something like it), she would tell me about how in the day she wrote a program to add more then one zero when she pushed the zero key because she was lazy to press the key multiple times, however even with all this she still can barely use a modern GUI machine and she used to be scared of computers.
It puzzles me to this day that she could do these difficult things before but now she can barely operate a much eas
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Back up your assertions or be silent.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:At last! (Score:4, Funny)
I don't think there's much about a fairly stable distro that prevents a repair shop, help line, or techie relative from knowing the ins and outs well enough to help. And there's variation between distros but it's not *crazy*, that is, if you felt comfortable working on a Debian box, you could handle one with Ubuntu, etc. Those two would cover most of the customers.
Yeah, all the software comes from different places, but that's not unique to linux. Assuming someone sticks to a reasonable set of software and it's all from the Canonical repositories, you could easily have a setup that's capable of being worked on by someone who didn't do the actual installation.
If things seem to be FUBAR you could always wipe & reinstall whatever distro, and say they had one of those pesky linux viruses :D
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:At last! (Score:4, Insightful)
"Folks get a Linux machine and it is just them,Google,and a big scary CLI."
hm.. I thought I somehow inadvertently retrieved a cached page from 1998, but that doesn't make sense 'cause you mention "Google" ...
For the people I think you might be talking about, right-clicking on anything is approximately as scary as the cli.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Using wine is just *asking* for console hacks ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have not had those issues with Ubuntu at all and I have been using it for a while.
You might want to try OpenSuse. I think SAX is a much better X configuration program than what is shipped in Ubuntu. It is just that I like the rest of Ubuntu more than OpenSuse.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
True but then you have the issue of what do you do in Windows when things go poorly.
I have more problems with Windows drivers than I ever did with Linux. But that is just me.
Re:At last! (Score:5, Insightful)
How would someone afraid of the command line fix this kind of problem in Windows? If the user is the kind to be afraid of a command line, they are probably one of those users that need help when anything substantial goes wrong.
I bet said user would end up asking for help from someone else.
So, in light of that, how is it any different between Linux and Windows? Both have problems, and both can be a pain in the ass to fix.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Uh, maybe try again not using the LiveCD this time?
Re: (Score:2)
Ubuntu has been the best for me. It works out of the box where as Fedora still gives me the missing cursor BS when I install it. But even that can be sorted without the console. It just takes forever since I'm not sure where my mouse is pointing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's funny it doesn't with my nVidia 7900GS or my 6800GS cards in either of the boxes I just installed it on.
Re: (Score:2)
is this a joke? when was the last time you used a linux desktop? 2001?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:At last! (Score:5, Informative)
Vista does, yes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I prefer having a working command line, as walking my mother through how to do something on windows is absolutely hideous (click here, click there, no not that one, close that window, click that tab), while on linux it's usually a simple one-line command that I can send to her via email, text message, or IM.
In my books, it's Windows that's deficient in the user case you suggested.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Linux is no worse off than Windows for the general public.
We could almost employ a car analogy here. I could talk damn near anyone with a reasonable grasp of reality through changing a tyre on a car. This is about the same as teaching someone how to put a CD in.
I could talk my Mum through changing the oil filter on her VW, but it would be easier to just do it.
There isn't a hope in hell of me talking her through changing the timing belt. Fortunately when that needs done, I can just do it myself
Re:At last! (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo.
The year of the linux desktop will never come until "making everything work" for 80% of the population requires precisely zero command line interactions, and precisely zero edits of obscure text files. And that most google searches for help end with instructions telling the user how to fix their problem or get their whatever working must also use precisely zero command line interactions, and precisely zero edits of obscure text files.
This includes hardware, common to obscure applications, common customizations etc.
If you have to edit a text file, your software is not ready for (l)users.
Re:At last! (Score:5, Funny)
If you have to edit a text file, your software is not ready for (l)users.
Who wants lusers using the same OS as you? One of the reasons I use GNU/Linux (Debian) is precisely because the user communities are free of lusers, so that I know that whenever I post a message to a mailing list I will get answers from fellow power users.
Lusers tend to infect a software project with their stupidity and naivety. They tend to click on any link they see in their emails, so virus writters target whatever OS the lusers use most. The developers of a piece of software also tend to make their software more suitable for stupid users because they tend to think that accomodating more users is a good thing, thus driving power users away. Unfortunately this currently happens with some GNU/Linux distros. You just have to see that many newer GNU/Linux software projects only work with X and have no command line support, and many websites don't work with text browsers anymore.
Whatever software we use is not only determined by technical merit but also by social factors. We want to use software which is different from anyone else, particularly the lusers and the closed source world. If our OS requires interaction with a command line and editing obscure text files, then we can know for sure that we will never have to deal with a luser in our support mailing lists, etc.
Thus, user-unfriendliness is a filter that we can use intentionally to keep non-powerusers away from our communities. If GNU/Linux ever becomes the preferred OS of lusers I am going to switch to OpenBSD, and if that too gets infected by lusers I will write my own.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, you're making a false comparison: How usable Linux is is an entirely separate issue from how usable Windows is. In an ideal world, Linux would be EASIER than Windows. With your approach, you're basically saying "once you're as good as Windows, you can give up and stop improving."
Secondly:
1) You don't need to use the CLI to install antivirus software.
2) You don't need to use the CLI to install Office.
3) Registry repair hasn't been part of the Windows experience since Windows 2000 came out; do t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you're missing the point there, sir.
Linux is not Windows.
Why do we have to be like Windows?
A better question would be:
Why do people argue over stupid stuff like this?
If you like Windows, use it. If you like Linux, use it. Please try to refrain from complaining because it's not the way _you_ like it.
I personally use Linux because I like it. I grew up with the ol' classic Mac. Then Windows. And moved on to Linux about 8 years ago.
I _like_ editing obscure config files. I _like_ using the command line.
Re:At last! (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you. What bothers me is that I've seen this conversation about 50,000,000 times on this site:
A: Linux isn't very good at Foobar.
B: Windows is just as bad at Foobar!1!!!
Notice how person B totally and completely changed the subject while simultaneously missing the point. The point isn't how good Windows is at it; in fact, the original poster didn't even *mention* Windows 90% of the time this conversation happens. The point is that Linux isn't very good at Foobar and should be better at Foobar.
Mac OS X users don't constantly compare themselves to Windows; I could go on "macosxhints.com" and post, "wow, the interface for Spotlight in Finder sucks ass" and I won't get 47 replies that all read, "yeah, well, Windows search is worse!!11!." For some reason, the Linux community does that constantly. It's annoying, it should stop.
It's logically impossible to build an OS better than Windows if you only work on problems until you're "as good as Windows" at them. If the Linux cared about making a usable, supported, real alternative OS, they wouldn't do this constant penis-measuring about Windows and they'd start working on it.
End rant, sorry.
Re:At last! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The comment is made in the context of a discussion started making a claim about what is holding back the adoption of Linux.
Given that Windows is widely adopted (to say the least), it makes no sense to attribute to the low adoption of Linux to a flaw that is shared by, or even worse, on Windows.
If you complain on a distro's forums about a usability issue or submit a bug, you are very unlikely to get the same response.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fine; then nobody should post it because it's a cliche. Either way, I'm completely and utterly sick of reading it.
Re: (Score:2)
Normally, I avoid correcting mistakes in Slashdot posts, but I'm going to make an exception in your case. Your post is cogent, which makes me think that you might care about this.
I think you should have written "fleshed out", which means to give something substance. It's like saying Ubuntu has a skeleton menu system that needs to have more things available in it so you don't have to keep going back to the console. This is in contrast to "flushed out", which means that the Ubuntu menu system is hiding somewh
Re:At last! (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, being a casual Linux user, sound card support is not the defining factor holding back Linux adoption. While Ubuntu goes a long way to improving the user experience with Linux, even to get it to a 'standard' setup, I needed to use the console no less than 5 times. That's *needed* to, there was no GUI way to do what I was trying to do.
While I personally have no problem doing that, I shudder at the idea of talking someone like my father through it. The day that I can combine Linux stability with ease of use... that will be the year of the Linux desktop. Driver integration and support goes a long way to doing that, and a flushed out menu system will put it over the top.
I have come to disbelieve in the mystical power of the GUI. The GUI does not solve all problems. It can not provide radio buttons and check-marks for every situation. And it does not invoke a state of bliss for helping the wayward neophyte in a state of confusion. I accept that some will see this as heresy.
Granted - I've long been a heretic. The command line is what ultimately turned me from Windows to Unix. But I understand that I am not a "normal user" and so I was willing to accept that GUIs are generally Good Ideas. And I still think they are; I used them in my Linux environment all the time for a lot of tasks. But there are times when it just doesn't work as well as a command line.
This isn't a Linux concept. Various proprietary Unix environments have long straddled the fence between GUI and command line. And that includes today's most celebrated consumer Unix environment: MacOS X. Even Microsoft has given the command line increasing attention. And that's not even covering such dark arts as registry hacking.
But wait! Most users never see a registry hack! Yet Linux must always resort to the command line. Right? Not in my experience.
It's probably due to my particular interests - but I've always found a reason to dig in to the guts of a system. Either I'm doing something unique for my own use, cleaning up after having broken something, or cleaning up after someone else having broken something. And that's always required a registry editor or a command line (and sometimes a command line even when a GUI option was available as I just found it easier). And when I'm not doing something too out-of-the-ordinary, I've found the base Unbuntu install gives me a perfectly suitable environment. The clicky-clicky magic is baked right in. Here. Today.
And when it doesn't? Its often a cruddy driver involved that trips up Ubuntu's autoconfig magic. That "driver integration" goes further than given credit for.
That doesn't mean "Linux" can't use improvement. There's plenty of room for it. Cruddy drivers included.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I really don't understand how your post can get modded up with so complete lack of arguable points.
I tend to use the console a lot, but when I do it's usually because:
1. I'm trying to do something others wouldn't, like say bridge a virtualbox to the network
2. I'm trying to bludgeon half-supported hardware into working, like my laptop's ACPI support
3. In a forum it's 100x easier to type up three lines of console text than make a GUI guide
I have had problems with sounds. I've also not had problems with sound
Re:At last! (Score:4, Insightful)
Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm hoping that Creative, along with ATI, Nvidia and others are beginning to realize that many home users who tinker with Linux are not just poor students looking for cheap solutions. Many Linux users are well-off somewhat technical professionals with the patience and the disposal income >
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Realistically we're still not going to see much for quite a while. From all accounts creative's attempts at a linux driver were crap(I didn't bother trying them after reading what people were having to do to make them even compile), and there will still probably have to be a complete rewrite, but at least with the new license they'll be able to reuse some of that code and it might speed things up a bit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, the summary says they're releasing the binary driver. Not the source.
Presumably as a LGPL, cause you can't really release a binary as full GPL, unless you created it in a hex editor and never used a compiler.
So I wouldn't get my hopes up for this leading to any better drivers from the community.
Anyhow, why would we want better drivers for a card that's hampered by hardware? It can only work completely in 48 kHz, so audio has to be converted, with a resulting quality loss.
There are far better cards a
Fucking awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Luckily for me I still have onboard sound and my speakers have 2 inputs. I use onboard sound while I'm in linux and the SB while in Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Crackle-crackle-cr[STOP] (Score:2)
Crackle-crackle-cr[STOP]
Halt! Are you GPL? Ok, move on!
aaah-aaaaah-ooooh-aaaah! [sweet music]
Why is this even closed source in the first place? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, what possible financial/business gain is there to have creative hide these things? Are they really worried about other companies stealing their driver ideas for their hardware? I know graphics drivers can potentially (or used to anyways) have a large amount of optimized code that could _maybe_ be beneficial to competitors, but sound cards?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Creative is probably one of those companies that chargers a grip for access to their API. Open sourcing the drivers means nobody will pay for any API access anymore. On linux.
Re:Why is this even closed source in the first pla (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
i don't know much about sound cards, but wouldn't something like Dolby Digital be handled in the firmware or on a dedicated chip? otherwise you might as well have the application (music player, DVD/video player, etc.) decode the Dolby Digital data to the raw uncompressed audio channels that are sent to the speakers.
Re: (Score:2)
True but there could be NDA issues
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Releasing driver source code reveals most of the same information that is included in detailed technical specifications. It almost always includes enough info to make a compatible, competing product, and often has enough info to greatly simplify the process of reverse-engineering the device.
A hardware company like Creative should be wary of doing this - it could really hurt their monopoly on gaming-oriented sound cards.
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK there is no EAX support in any of their Linux drivers or specifications. EAX is the only thing that separates Creative from the better (sound) quality, vendors out there.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll vouch he's right, based on my experience in the semiconductor industry.
Still I think Creative made the right choice.
-nB
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why is this even closed source in the first pla (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It was Creative who did that, yes. That's why I'm so confused they've turned around and released the Linux drivers under the GPL.
I wonder - how difficult is it to take a driver written for Linux and write one for Windows using the information it provides? Is there some enterprising X-Fi owner out there willing to do it so the rest of us can have a non-sucky X-Fi driver for Windows?
Disclaimer: I don't own an X-Fi (after the incident mentioned above, I pledged never to buy one).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, I believe it was that they had licensed some functionality for XP but not for Vista, so they were no longer enabled in the Vista driver. Someone posted hacks to reenable the functionality under Vista, which required Creative to do some legal bitching as they probably feared those they were licensing from. In any case, maybe their lawyers realized that even if the open source community implemented something patented or whatever it's not going to make Creative liable.
Re: (Score:2)
Sound cards don't go obsolete nearly as fast as other computer devices. (I'm still using the same emu10k1 based card as when I started with Linux), so creative likes to force upgrades by not updating drivers to newer OSes (as they admitted publicly). Looks like they now want to recover some of the good will they lost when they sued the kid for improving their drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
I was forced to search far and wide for older supported cards that were actually in stock somewhere. Now i can finally get _working_ optical input for my Linux machine!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's because all their cards are the same but they turn features on and off in the software allowing them to charge more for some cards then others but still producing the same card.
It's also why Nvidia doesn't release the source to their drivers, it's been put forth by the Nouveau guys (the people making an open source nvidia driver) that the Geforce 7 series is the same as the Geforce 6600 series and that if you want your Geforce to become a more expensive Quadro it's a simple memory rewrite to a certain
Sweet! (Score:5, Funny)
Now I can play all those great games that got built on top of the open-source ID engines!
Soundcards? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps this is a sign that Creative are fearing for their existence. I mean, with high quality onboard audio (7.1, dolby etc) now pretty much standard on even budget motherboards, aren't the days of buying a separate soundcard history now?
Other than musicians perhaps, I can't think that anyone, even gamers/power users would still consider a separate soundcard as a 'required' upgrade, or even necessary at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The X-Fi still handles S/PDIF output better than my motherboard's onboard sound device. It's more flexible in letting applications output to S/PDIF directly or going through their Dolby Digital Live encoder. It lets me use the analog outputs simultaneously with the S/PDIF output. Little things that add up, it's worth the money I spent on it 2 years ago.
Re:Soundcards? (Score:5, Informative)
Musicians (like me) will buy better-quality hardware than Creative. :3
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd buy the Xonar D2X. It compares reasonably well with the high-end HiFi cards, but also has EAX, and full Linux support. Naturally, you'll also need decent speakers. I have M-Audio AV40s, and that's about as much desk space as I can spare :) I'd add a 10" subwoofer if I could figure out where to put it.
Re:Soundcards? (Score:4, Informative)
One popular card is the good old M-Audio Audiophile 2496, which costs around $100.
Don't get the newer Audiophile 192 unless you need 192 kHz or balanced outputs. It is dumbed down, with reduced duplex, and you can't route the SPDIF input from, say, a TV at the same time as you route analog sound from, say, the GUI. You get one or the other, but not both independently.
There are many other popular choices, but the M-Audio is one of the more rock solid ones for Linux use.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's a VERY [pcavtech.com] high-performance card. That said, it is a professional card, and thus rather expensive. Compatible with windows, mac os, Linux, and FreeBSD. Possibly other BSDs as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, with high quality onboard audio (7.1, dolby etc) now pretty much standard on even budget motherboards, aren't the days of buying a separate soundcard history now?
Indeed. For most purposes the on-board sound is more than good enough these days. I haven't bought a sound card for personal use in years. The last motherboard I bought came with 7.1 built-in, and I only have crappy desktop stereo speakers.
If one of my clients does need a separate sound card I'll go with Turtle Beach [turtlebeach.com]. They've been a great alternative to Creative for many years now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I mean, with high quality onboard audio (7.1, dolby etc) now pretty much standard on even budget motherboards, aren't the days of buying a separate soundcard history now?"
Please dont say that. I just upgraded to a new socket AM2 board and I have had more problems with the on board sound then I ever had with a card. I used to have a Turtlebeach Santacruz and now with the horrid realtek garbadge I am fed up with on board sound. Realtek leaves the driver and interface software design to the motherboard manufa
Re:Soundcards? (Score:5, Informative)
Headphones.
No one else gives a damn about headphones. The quality issues with on-board sound become quite apparent with a good set of headphones, and even most other consumer sound cards treat it as an afterthought, doing whatever they would do with a set of stereo speakers. The X-Fi (at least under Windows) has an absolutely excellent headphone spatialization algorithm for general listening, it completely resolves the fatigue issue that results from hearing only a single audio channel in each ear without naturally occurring crossfeed. As for gaming, Creative (or rather Aureal's) head related transfer function tech for 3D audio is second to none; it's better than 5.1 speakers and is the only thing on the market right now worth a damn for 3D audio on headphones.
Unfortunately I'm not sure how much of this would be usable under Linux. The spatialization issue in particular drives me nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
With quad cores as cheap as they are, I don't think it's an issue even if the onboard sound somehow uses an entire core ;)
GPL... (Score:5, Insightful)
GPL. So BSD coders will have to rewrite it from scratch.
This is better than nothing, but worse than good documentation and worse than a BSD driver (that could be merged to BSD and GPL licensed operating systems).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Figure out how to talk to the hardware.
3. Write the BSD driver.
Step 2 is made much easier by step 1. Without step 1 you have to talk to the hardware without any kind of reference.
Sound cards are irrelevant (Score:5, Informative)
Not even gamers buy sound cards anymore [steampowered.com]. I bet Creative's sound card business is small fries compared to their consumer electronics business.
Re:Sound cards are irrelevant (Score:5, Informative)
Not even gamers buy sound cards anymore.
It does make you wonder what the 30% "other" is though.
They've got Creative Labs represented at about 3.5% between Audigy 2 ZS, Audigy, and X-Fi. But is that accurately counting all the X-Fi variants? What about the multitude of Audigy 2's that aren't "ZS". Ditto for the diverse original Audigy line. The venerable SoundBlaster "Live" series that preceded the Audigy isn't represented at all. I wouldn't really be raising the question, except that we've got that giant 30% "other" sitting there. I could easily see another 5 or 6 or more percent being various creative labs cards.
In any case, I agree with you that that even gamers aren't buying sound cards the way they used to.
That said, some of those steam numbers look WAY out of whack.
Take a look at 16:9 (widescreen) aspect ratio monitors, which they claim make up 26% of all monitors. And within widescreen 34% claim 24" or larger (24" @ 15%+ over 24" @ 19%).
That equates to 9% of all users using a 24"+ screen. Yet if you compare that to the primary display resolution table, a mere 2.29% are running 1920x1200 or larger. 1920x1200 is the native resolution on 24"-26" screens, with 30" being 2560x1600 (and not represented at all in the chart).
I call bullshit.
hardhack?!? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
People are free to tag any way they want.
People are idiots.
Put one and two together.
Is Vista next? (Score:2)
Maybe next, Creative will start making drivers for Vista?
(Seriously - this is not a joke [slashdot.org])
Why not BSD-license? (Score:4, Insightful)
This would've allowed for easier inclusion of the driver in BSD systems, without any threat to Creative — whatever extra freedoms are granted by the BSD-license compared to GPL, they are useless in the case of a vendor releasing a driver for their own hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
As a GPL fanboi, I agree completely.
My guess is that it's the license the people making the deciion had heard of.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this compatible with Audigy 2 ZS? (Score:2)
I still have my old SB Audigy 2 ZS. Will this work for it? I like EAX for games.
Obligatory bash reference (Score:5, Funny)
Too little to late (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not going to bother dusting off what were my state of the art X-Fi soundcards out of the garage. As with the copies of Windows I get bundled with the computers I buy, I won't bother giving them away or selling them as I refuse to inflict the damned things on anybody else. I'm not going to buy Creative again.
Phillip.
Re:Win? (Score:5, Interesting)
The summary is misleading. TFA says that the source is available on their web site.
FWIW, you can't use the GPL if you don't make the source available.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you misunderstand. How in the hell would you open source a binary only driver?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would be possible, if you hand-entered the machine code and stuff required for the file format format in a binary editor. This would be cumbersome, but possible. It probably would not be enough to compile and link the binary and then simply type the data into an editor. You would probably have to actually write the program in machine code. If someone actually wrote a sound card driver this way, I would buy him a candy bar.
I just made myself think of all those tables of binary in Nibble magazine t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not wanting to get into another flame fest thread over GPLv2 vs GPLv3, but I'm curious as to their reasoning for choosing v2. Did they say?
Not that I've heard, but one reason is patents. If Creative hold any patents over the driver, or even the hardware, they may be at risk when using the GPLv3 (the risk doesn't have to be real, only perceived). There's also the licenses of ALSA and OSS. I checked both, and they're GPLv2-only. GPLv3-only source code would be useless unless they relicensed their entire projects, and I don't think they'd be in any hurry to do that.