Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: NVIDIA's PRIME Helpers Are Ready For Linux 3.9

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    Huh, really? Individual files can override the global license? Then what's the point of having a global license to begin with? And what does "relicensing the kernel" even mean in that case? After all, if a code file is under BSD, and people want to relicense the kernel to BSD, then it's not really relicensing for that particular code file...
    Its the same point of having exceptions and EXPORT_SYMBOL / EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL you don't necessarily WANT everything to be affected by the viral nature of the GPL. Sometimes you WANT things to be able to freely interface with the kernel without necessarily being open source.

    Think of the X server.

    KMS is a GPL interface, The X Server is MIT licensed. We have closed source drivers though because they replace the GPL parts with their own code and then interface through the X server.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,931

    Default

    Proprietary drivers are not viable.
    We have some now, and but we shouldn't have them in the future.
    They're not viable, the drivers must be open source.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Proprietary drivers are not viable.
    We have some now, and but we shouldn't have them in the future.
    They're not viable, the drivers must be open source.
    While I agree drivers should be opensource, thats not the current reality. We have to work within bounds and realities of...well, reality. Intel is open source and doing great. Radeon is shaping up nicely aside from power management and video decoding, Nouveau....is a mess. Though hopefully the open source Tegra code will give some insights into the general design of Nvidia hardware and therefore give the Nouveau devs a boost.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    While I agree drivers should be opensource, thats not the current reality. We have to work within bounds and realities of...well, reality. Intel is open source and doing great. Radeon is shaping up nicely aside from power management and video decoding, Nouveau....is a mess. Though hopefully the open source Tegra code will give some insights into the general design of Nvidia hardware and therefore give the Nouveau devs a boost.
    Thank you for using the word "reality". People here need to be reminded of that. They might not listen, or be capable of listening, but they still need to be reminded.

    Responisble Thinking FTW!

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    Huh, really? Individual files can override the global license? Then what's the point of having a global license to begin with? And what does "relicensing the kernel" even mean in that case? After all, if a code file is under BSD, and people want to relicense the kernel to BSD, then it's not really relicensing for that particular code file...
    It's typical for projects to have a copyright license at the top of every single file. The kernel isn't exceptional in that regard. Any code that's brought in to the kernel can be whatever license you want, as long as it is compatible with the rest of the kernel - which means it has to be compatible with GPLv2 since everything else in there is less restricting.

    The "global" license, doesn't really exist. It's just a shorthand for saying, this is the most restrictive licenses we have in there, so everything else has to comply with it.

    The kernel graphics drivers, for example, are all BSD licensed, so that they can be ported over to other OS's more easily if anyone wishes to do so.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,762

    Default

    When you combine BSD code with GPL code (as happens in the kernel), it becomes GPL. The combined work *must* be under GPL. The reason why non-GPL programs can use the kernel is because of exceptions, not because parts of the kernel don't use the GPL.

    As I mentioned earlier (but no one seemed to notice), you wouldn't be able to run non-GPL software on Linux otherwise.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    When you combine BSD code with GPL code (as happens in the kernel), it becomes GPL. The combined work *must* be under GPL.
    Well, sort of. The code that is linked together becomes GPL at that point. However, the source files can still be BSD. Or, dual-licensed BSD and GPL if that is what you prefer to think of it as. But for this argument, linking the nvidia drivers into a compiled kernel, you are correct.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    Yes, that's true, but then the layer must be non-GPL, and so it can't be a part of the kernel. So I can't see what the patches here achieve. GPL-compliant software can already use DMA-BUF without issues.
    The GPL is a viral licence, when you compile it, all of that binary is GPL. The only exception is the bright line towards normal system calls.

    The PRIME layer allows drm drivers to expose an ioctl which can pass objects from GEM to a dma_buf file descriptor. An ioctl is a fairly standard way to present a system call to interact with hardware that is difficult to access though more standard system calls.

    Prime itself really isn't a shim per say, but should be safe to implement within a shim that enables a proprietary driver. Whereas a shim that exposed dma_buf directly is in legally dangerous territory.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdx View Post
    So Nvidia got away with their blob and optimus on Linux after all, without contributing anything when it comes to Free software, FOSS and Linux itself.

    Crap.

    When are people going to start defending and demanding freedom (Free Software) and not just demand close-source solutions like this one that Nvidia is providing?

    This is really disappointing.

    Nvidia is destroying what made Linux so great in all these years and you guys are like "Horraay! We'll have our optimus!".

    You guys are idiots.
    Wah, watch out, the Linux/GPL haters crowd is around!

    But yeah, pretty interesting move isn't it? I mean as a follow up they could simply create such constructs for any kernel API they need access to and laugh at Linus and all the other stupid kernel devs and their GPL kernel pipe dream.

    Welcome to the real world!

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdx View Post
    Why do you refer to me as a Linux/GPL hater? I don't hate Linux or the GPL, in fact, I'm against the blob.

    Fuck the "real world".
    I didn't mean you but the posters on the first page, should have been more explicit I guess...

Posting Permissions

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