Quote Originally Posted by val-gaav View Post
IMHO AMD should drop the development of fglrx for some time and focus on doc and code releasing. Last fglrx driver seems to be quite nice already so people shouldn't complain if they know that AMD for the time being is focusing on the docs and open drivers...
The skill sets are surprisingly different. We do horse-trade resources back and forth but in general we need people with legal and IP background to work on doc and code releasing.

Quote Originally Posted by val-gaav View Post
In the long run AMD should drop fglrx for good and just develop some blob module for open drivers for things that couldn't be opened like h.264 hardware decoding or other DRM things... It's a waste of resources to develop both open and closed drivers.
This sounds great and it's an option we do consider, but so far it's not looking that good. Might be possible to have some of the display driver code relying on open source, but most of the acceleration stack (drm, xv*, opengl) will need to be closed source in the future for a couple of reasons :

1. If we're ever going to play protected video (DVDs, HD/BD) then we have to protect the decoded bitmaps all the way to the frame buffer, and we can't do that in an open driver.

2. For workstation business we invest a lot of money in performance-related driver work and wouldn't want to open source that because some of that work *is* useful to competitors.

Since we're not playing protected video today we could convert to use more open source in the short term, but by the time we finished that it would probably be time to start converting back

IMO the best strategy is to have open AND closed drivers and use each one where it fits best.