Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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

    Comment


    • 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.

      Comment


      • 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.

        Comment


        • 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.

          Comment


          • 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.

            Comment


            • 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.

              Comment


              • 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.

                Comment


                • 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.

                  Comment


                  • 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.

                    Comment


                    • 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.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X