Page 11 of 26 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 259

Thread: Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Reality doesn't match the fantasy world you have created in your head. Linux devs seem to only care about being able to run X11 with an xterm on it and do coding in Emacs and vi. They're stuck in the 1990's. Also, they behave like children. They constantly repeat the same thing, "I want the code", like a child in a candy store repeatedly shouting "I want candy." They should grow up and learn to cooperate with proprietary vendors. Even the hardcore "Free Software or Death" guys at FSF gave the world tools to create proprietary software if they so wish (like GCC and glibc). That was a sane decision. It's funny how the kernel devs distance themselves from the "Free Software zealots" and the likes of RMS, but then play the "proprietary drivers are evil" card. What a bunch of hypocrites.
    You use Linux, so you benefit from more than a decade of openness and contributions by volunteers, non-profit organizations and for-profit companies. The development model of Linux has enabled it to out-innovate every other kernel in existence.

    If you look more a bit more closely, you will notice that the kernel developers' goals are vastly different from what you think they are. They want to build the best kernel possible. Everybody who wants to contribute is welcome to submit patches. Some will be accepted, others rejected, names called, and so on. In the end, the kernel will be better and/or people will have learned from the experience. However, companies that provide only binary drivers do nothing to advance the Linux kernel. Some kernel developers consider binary drivers a violation of their copyright even.

    Cooperating with proprietary vendors gives the Linux kernel developers nothing in return, just letting others exploit their work for free without giving anything back.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Well, I think a working Optimus implementation based on the Nouvea driver should be possible, even if Nvidia itself would not cooperate.

    If the result will give any performance gains (given the early state of recent-hardware hardware support in Nouveau) over just using the Intel GPU is another question.
    Last edited by MartinK; 10-12-2012 at 10:08 AM.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdx View Post
    Fuck you nvidia, I'm so glad Linux developers are giving you a hard time, I hope secure boot will also give you a hard time. Just realize how lost you are here. Release specs or GTFO already.
    They are not giving Nvidia a hard time. I'm sure they'd love to not spend money developing optimus for linux. More money to spend on private islands for the CEO's.

    The Linux dev's are giving USERS a hard time. They are deprieving USERS of the ability and chioce to use thier system how they want. Alan is deciding for us all becuase he has a bone to pick, while SCREAMING GPL and Freedom! Instead its Alan really saying "its my code, fuck everyone else, I'm the decider".

    Someone should just fork his code as LGPL, and merge it in the kernel with the title, for "USE with Prop. Drivers Only", solving the problem, and dening him the power to push twisted viewpoint of "freedom" on us.

    If its his code, and he won't let anyone touch it, then we'll use the GPL to against him, and show him its OUR code.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,537

    Default

    Yea, I also think that there is no reason to make an exception for NVIDIA. It will slow things down for them, but they should have known it would be the case from the get-go (and it seems that they did, since they wanted the license changed). Of course, open-sourcing their blob is not an option, but helping out nouveau is something they could do. In that case everyone would win.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    The Linux dev's are giving USERS a hard time. They are deprieving USERS of the ability and chioce to use thier system how they want. Alan is deciding for us all becuase he has a bone to pick, while SCREAMING GPL and Freedom! Instead its Alan really saying "its my code, fuck everyone else, I'm the decider".

    Someone should just fork his code as LGPL, and merge it in the kernel with the title, for "USE with Prop. Drivers Only", solving the problem, and dening him the power to push twisted viewpoint of "freedom" on us.

    If its his code, and he won't let anyone touch it, then we'll use the GPL to against him, and show him its OUR code.
    What. Users already have plenty of choice. Proprietary or open-source drivers, for instance. I'm sure NVIDIA can figure out something with Optimus on their own, without compromising the kernel and infringing on rights.

    And, uh, if it's his code, he is the decider. And he decided on a license. And the license states that it can't be used with proprietary software. There is nothing that anyone can do about that. Also, I don't think GPL allows relicensing things with a less strict license. And even if it did, well, good luck maintaining the whole relicensed kernel!

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    The Linux dev's are giving USERS a hard time. They are deprieving USERS of the ability and chioce to use thier system how they want.
    No, they are not. The kernel is GPL and this can't be changed.

    As long as the kernel is GPL, Nvidia can't use DMA_BUF. That's how GPL works. You'd have to relicense the entire kernel, and that's impossible.

    Someone should just fork his code as LGPL
    OMG, the people who post here :facepalm:

    It's better if somebody forks Nvidia's code as LGPL :facepalm:

    If its his code, and he won't let anyone touch it, then we'll use the GPL to against him, and show him its OUR code.
    What the fuck? It's your code? Why? You didn't write it.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,927

    Default

    Once again for those who don't understand:

    The only reason why Nvidia can get away with a binary-only blob is that they don't use any part of the kernel, they reimplemented everything in their blob. They only interface with the kernel.

    DMA_BUF integration would mean that they are sharing certain GPL-ed parts of the Linux kernel with in-kernel drivers. You cannot shim around this because you must use the same code that the Intel driver uses. Whatever part touches this is derivative of the Linux kernel.

    Nvidia's licence prevents this. That's the end of the story. You cannot just rename a symbol and then claim that it's legal.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    What. Users already have plenty of choice. Proprietary or open-source drivers, for instance. I'm sure NVIDIA can figure out something with Optimus on their own, without compromising the kernel and infringing on rights.

    And, uh, if it's his code, he is the decider. And he decided on a license. And the license states that it can't be used with proprietary software. There is nothing that anyone can do about that. Also, I don't think GPL allows relicensing things with a less strict license. And even if it did, well, good luck maintaining the whole relicensed kernel!
    So, GPL doesn't mean freedom for the users? It means a few strong armed people get to make decisions for everyone else? Then the GPL means nothing but another way for people to control and menipulate each other. Alan might as well patent it and start sueing other implemetations, becuase he is as bad as Apple/Microsoft.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    So, GPL doesn't mean freedom for the users? It means a few strong armed people get to make decisions for everyone else? Then the GPL means nothing but another way for people to control and menipulate each other. Alan might as well patent it and start sueing other implemetations, becuase he is as bad as Apple/Microsoft.
    Dude, how old are you and when was the last time you read the GPL?

    You have the freedom to inspect, run, modify and redistribute all of Alan Cox' code to your heart's content. The only thing you are not allowed to do (by copyright law) is to relicense his code.

    With the Nvidia blob, you don't have the freedom to inspect, modify, or redistribute, and you are only allowed to run it if you agree to an EULA which limits what you can do with it.

    How confused can you get?

    Linux kernel was GPLed before Nvidia even existed. Almost all major manufacturers are working together with the kernel folks who a) do not want to change their licence and b) cannot change it even if they wanted to. Nvidia's problems are of their own making. The kernel's licence hasn't changed in more than 20 years. If you dislike it, why the hell are you using it?

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    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.
    boah, do you need a licence to wade such deep in bullshit? It is like a bullshit avalanche!

    Listen closely: running something in userspace that is a completely different entity using nothing but very well defined interfaces is something COMPLETELY different from abusing kernel internal structures. The first one is just everyday usage. The second one is where licences become involved. Nvidia ignores the GPL and tries to trample on the rights of those who wrote the code.

    And you don't blame them but the kernel devs? Come on, what do you need to take to have such a twisted view of reality.

    If Nvidia really cared, they would either open their driver or support open source driver development. Just like INTEL or AMD.

    NVIDIA even tried to shoot down 2d driver development with code obfuscating and other dirtiness. They are the ones to blame. Nobody else.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •