Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

[pingufunkybeat]

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.

[pingufunkybeat]

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.

[dh04000]

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.

[asdx]

Nvidia got what they deserve, for being assholes. They got it in, you like that Nvidia?

Fuck you Nvidia, assholes.

[pingufunkybeat]

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?

[energyman]

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.

[pingufunkybeat]

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

[dh04000]

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.

[droidhacker]

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.

[droidhacker]

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.