The kernel allows closed source software to run on it. DMABUF, being an API that can be used externally, should be exported to be used by anyone, regardless of license. What's next? GPLing the mmap() interface and making it illegal to run non-GPL software under Linux? You seriously think that's a good thing?
This has nothing to do with licenses. This has to do with AMD and Intel trying to stay ahead of NVidia by abusing their position within the kernel developer community.
Who are these people that want Optimus tech on a router OS?
On the other hand, Nvidia does not stand to lose any vital hardware design information by providing source code and programming documentation. Intel already provides a voluminous quantity of source code and programming documentation, yet we do not see them having lost secrets because of it. Anyone who knows how hardware works will know that the exact circuit designs that implement a programming API cannot be obtained by looking at the programming API and if they are good then making a good copy based on the API is hard.
Nvidia must release everything till the OGL3.3 under GPL, in a form of a unified_driver that is multilevel and can target various CPUs and various GPUs with LLVM and backends. Then they have to provide all the rest (OGL4+) with a closed extension package, that uses a specific path of the backend, made only for Nvidia GPUs. That extensions can be: extra compilers, extra programs for the synthesizer, extra FX, but not driver functionality like memory management, that should be open. I don't wont to refer to known security issue with Nvidia drivers, that the company didn't fix for 5 years. With that kind of unified_driver Nvidia can explore all the open source, and can use it for all operating systems.
It is your own fault for doing that. F**K YOU then.Quote:
2. Your code includes patent-infringing code that will get you sued.
Not sure how "platform specific code" would prevent it from being opened.... but even if it did, it only applies to those platform-specific PARTS of the code.Quote:
3. Your code is multi-platform (more on that later) and includes platform specific code that prevents it from being opened.
Then you did a terrible job in reviewing those contracts. Time to shoot yourself in the head.Quote:
4. Your code is being used by clients and you're prohibited by contract from releasing your code.
Nice? Are you on crack? They tried to SNEAK IT IN rather than what they SHOULD have done (to be nice), which is to ASK.Quote:
On a personal note (Ignoring for a second that we've yet to hear the code owner's view on the matter), I believe the Linux devs are being right instead of being smart.
nVidia is actually trying to play nice - I believe this behavior should be encouraged instead of being ignored. (E.g. trying to reach a gentleman's agreement that DMA-BUF will be made EXPORT_SYMBOL in-exchange to some documentation or headers)
Nothing wrong with ASKING POLITELY, however, even if they did, it should STILL be declined. Closed drivers have no business interacting with open drivers.