Page 12 of 26 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 259

Thread: Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

  1. #111
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,926

    Default

    DMA_BUF is NOT an external interface used by userspace, it is an internal kernel-only interface between in-kernel modules.

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    440

    Default

    Then someone come up with an idea that doesn't involve relicensing anyone's code that allows optimus to be used by the USERs?

    Detail it below.

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    They [kernel devs] are not giving users a hard time. I'm sure they'd [nvidia] love to not spend money developing optimus for linux. More money to spend on private islands for the CEO's.

    NVIDIA is giving USERS a hard time. They [nvidia] are deprieving USERS of the ability and chioce to use thier system how they want. Alan is helping us all becuase he has an objective of protecting Freedom! Its Alan really saying "its our code, fuck everyone [nvidia] who wants to take advantage of us".

    Everyone should just leave all code as GPL, with the title, for "GPL-Only", solving the problem, and dening nvidia the power to push twisted viewpoint of "freedom" on us.

    If its not their [nvidia's] code, then we'll use the GPL to protect ourselves, and show them [nvidia] its OUR code.
    Fixed it for you.

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    So, GPL doesn't mean freedom for the users?
    GPL means FREEDOM FOR THE USERS, because some asshole like nvidia can't steal and manipulate that code to lock users in to proprietary nonsense.

    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.
    It means that a few strong armed people [nvidia] do NOT get to make decisions for everyone else.
    Yes, the GPL is there for manipulation; to manipulate HOSTILE ADVERSARIES such that they LOSE THE POWER to harm the USERS.

  5. #115
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    Then someone come up with an idea that doesn't involve relicensing anyone's code that allows optimus to be used by the USERs?

    Detail it below.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouveau_%28software%29

    Now tell Nvidia to get onboard.

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    Then someone come up with an idea that doesn't involve relicensing anyone's code that allows optimus to be used by the USERs?

    Detail it below.
    I can immediately think of at least three solutions that would still offer choice to the users.
    1) Nouveau. It is free to use this feature.
    2) If nvidia wants to offer this functionality in their blob, they are free to implement it themselves in their userspace driver and advertise its availability for other drivers to use. Somehow, I doubt that anybody would be particularly impressed with this option, though. It would likely go unused.
    3) Don't buy nvidia.

  7. #117
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,525

    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.
    GPL is what is called "copyleft". It uses copyright laws to enforce the license. It's pretty much the polar opposite of traditional copyright, but the enforcement is just as strict. For instance, under traditional copyright, people must not redistribute the copyright work. Under GPL, people must redistribute the copyright work. If someone redistributes something that is under traditional copyright, authors can and will sue them. If someone doesn't redistribute something that is under a strong copyleft, authors can and will sue them. So yes, GPL is strict and it is a way to control and manipulate. The difference is that GPL is used to keep the code open at all times and at all costs.

  8. #118
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,442

    Default

    Doesn't bode well for Android, unless Google has their own method.

    Of course iOS and WinRT won't be encumbered with insanity, so they won't have any problem implementing such a mechanism.

  9. #119
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    DMA_BUF is NOT an external interface used by userspace, it is an internal kernel-only interface between in-kernel modules.
    Xorg is planning of using it as part of dri3.

  10. #120
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    For instance, under traditional copyright, people must not redistribute the copyright work. Under GPL, people must redistribute the copyright work.
    No no no.

    If you modify GPL software, you don't have to redistribute anything. But if you CHOOSE to redistribute, then the resulting code must also be GPL.

    You can combine GPL software and proprietary software to your heart's content, as long as you don't distribute the result to others. GPL is a distribution license.

    The difference is that GPL is used to keep the code open at all times and at all costs.
    No, GPL is used to ensure that if you receive software, you keep the right to modify and redistribute it under GPL terms. It doesn't say anything about the case where you keep the code for yourself and don't pass it on.

    This is very important, because the "viral" FUD bullshit is based on such false premises. GPL doesn't force you to do anything with your code. It only governs the redistribution of code based on GPL code. If you want to distribute versions of GPLed code, it has to be under the GPL.

Posting Permissions

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