Page 2 of 33 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 329

Thread: Bickering Continues About NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    32

    Default

    So, nVidia is being Cox blocked?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigaldo View Post
    Alan Cox logic:
    Advocates Open Source. Forces NVIDIA and it's users to use more closed source code.
    Haha yeah. I mean if proprietary vendors can't use this interface then what is even the point of it?




    Quote Originally Posted by Rigaldo View Post

    Actually this would probably make things worse in general? 0_o
    Personally I don't wish bad things for Cox. He is great asset. I just think he should be glad that nvidia wants to use MORE open source in their drivers instead of reinventing the wheel behind closed doors.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Alan has been very vocal about rejecting the NVIDIA-requested change as he doesn't want NVIDIA's binary -- but widely-used -- graphics driver to support the DMA-BUF infrastructure.
    This is simply a slander. It says little about Alan, but much about Michael.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    128

    Default

    It sounds like a lot of people here would rather be using BSD.

    It's entirely Nvidia's fault they're in this situation - there's no reason the Linux kernel devs should accommodate them. David was nice enough to write GPL code to solve a need for the kernel, if Nvidia wants the functionality they can play by the rules or they can write their own and ask Intel to use it.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    Guys, once again:

    Kernel devs did not pick the kernel licence yesterday. They (Linus) picked it more than 20 years ago. They can't change it.

    Binary kernel module using internal stuff like DMA-BUF violates the GPL, and nobody would be allowed to distribute that without risking a devastating lawsuit. That's the way it is. Renaming symbols just clarifies this, but does not in any way change the GPL, which prohibits it.

    What Nvidia wants is some kind of tacit approval that this violation is "OK" so in the case of a lawsuit they can claim that they were acting in good faith and were misled. What Alan wants is for them to take the responsibility for the violation. If they think that it's legal for them to call kernel code from their binary module, they should simply ignore the symbol names. After all, there's nothing to worry about, right?
    Last edited by pingufunkybeat; 10-18-2012 at 02:10 PM.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    450

    Default

    I don't know if Linus has already taken part in the discussion but if he hasn't then I think he needs to make a decision. I wouldn't normally support closed source but he called on NVIDIA to do something and now they're trying to do the best that they reasonably can and the community is blocking it. I wouldn't be surprised if they turn around and say "well fuck you too."

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chewi View Post
    I don't know if Linus has already taken part in the discussion but if he hasn't then I think he needs to make a decision. I wouldn't normally support closed source but he called on NVIDIA to do something and now they're trying to do the best that they reasonably can and the community is blocking it. I wouldn't be surprised if they turn around and say "well fuck you too."
    No. They can do more.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    362

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCycoONE View Post
    It sounds like a lot of people here would rather be using BSD.

    It's entirely Nvidia's fault they're in this situation - there's no reason the Linux kernel devs should accommodate them. David was nice enough to write GPL code to solve a need for the kernel, if Nvidia wants the functionality they can play by the rules or they can write their own and ask Intel to use it.
    Question: Whats the point of DMA-BUF if the people who need to use it, can't?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tehehe View Post
    Haha yeah. I mean if proprietary vendors can't use this interface then what is even the point of it?
    AMD Radeon drivers? Multitude of mobile GPUs? I'm not sure, but it could be also used by video editing/rendering software...

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gamerk2 View Post
    Question: Whats the point of DMA-BUF if the people who need to use it, can't?
    Most drivers can use it just fine.

Posting Permissions

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