Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by dh04000 View Post
    Wasn't a kernal developer also claiming that the data coming out of the driver is also gpl'd (becuase it was labeled with a gpl'd symbol)? So, they basically are saying the user's data is thier right to license as well. Worse than Apple and Microsoft if you ask me.
    Nothing in userspace is ever considered a derivative of the kernel. Something that actually becomes part of the kernel is. Nvidia and AMD try to wiggle around this by having some permissively licensed "kernel glue" that basically does nothing useful on its own, and just provides interfaces for their userspace stuff.

    I think they spell out what they consider derived works in the COPYING file.

    NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".

    Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

    Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
    http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kerne...OPYING;hb=HEAD

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
      So why are Nvidia so afraid of opening up their drivers? I mean plenty of worldclass stuff in linux, my own plugins included. They are a hardware seller right? So the drivers that come with are open-source, what harm would it do? And sharing that, does that make anyone more competitive? Think about optimizations from the users aswell. Probably to the point of optimal. And generalized for any driver. So everyone contributes. How can that be negative?

      Peace Be With You.
      Except for a few points:

      1) First off, in most companies, S/w Coding standards is company proprietary information. So thats why NVIDIA can't just open their drivers.

      2) The drivers for the H/W are going to be at a VERY low level, and will basically show how NVIDIA accomplished everything in its H/W. You think AMD/Intel would like to see that information? This is especially notable, since NVIDIA has a lot of specialized components on its cards to handle certain tasks (they've hinted at such over the years...)

      3) If the Kernel does not expose a way for a technology like Optimus to work, then the only way to accomplish it is though drivers. And since NVIDIA will not open their drivers up (nor should they be required to), anyone who opposes NVIDIA's efforts looses the right to complain about the lack of optimus support.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
        Except for a few points:

        1) First off, in most companies, S/w Coding standards is company proprietary information. So thats why NVIDIA can't just open their drivers.

        2) The drivers for the H/W are going to be at a VERY low level, and will basically show how NVIDIA accomplished everything in its H/W. You think AMD/Intel would like to see that information? This is especially notable, since NVIDIA has a lot of specialized components on its cards to handle certain tasks (they've hinted at such over the years...)

        3) If the Kernel does not expose a way for a technology like Optimus to work, then the only way to accomplish it is though drivers. And since NVIDIA will not open their drivers up (nor should they be required to), anyone who opposes NVIDIA's efforts looses the right to complain about the lack of optimus support.
        I think the two biggest reasons Nvidia and AMD don't want to open source their drivers or release certain specs (AMD) or anything at all (Nvidia) comes down to not wanting to reveal implementation details of Windows that are under NDA or risk leaking information that would be useful in breaking something like blu ray DRM.

        The nature of the way Nvidia and AMD's proprietary drivers and Linux itself works makes some things their drivers do possible to reverse engineer simply by watching the state of the hardware as you ask the proprietary driver to tell the GPU to do something. That's how Nouveau came about.

        Comment


        • #19
          NVidia (and companie alike) will try, and you can't blame them for that,
          it's just business as usual. GPL is the sole reason for today user freedom
          and diverse software ecosystem. I think nVidia has to rethink their current
          position (Linus loves them) and give back to the community. And thats just
          exactly what developers are saying between lines. Don't be a douche, you
          can't get love (gazillions of manyears of GPL development) if you don't even
          consider supporting opensource drivers. It's not our fault that your engineers
          and financial analysts took the road of developing a technology that can't be
          nice with opensource. It's your choice, your financial bottom line and now
          grow a pair and deal with it.

          Damn, I'm pissed

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
            3) If the Kernel does not expose a way for a technology like Optimus to work, then the only way to accomplish it is though drivers. And since NVIDIA will not open their drivers up (nor should they be required to), anyone who opposes NVIDIA's efforts looses the right to complain about the lack of optimus support.
            So how did they do it in Windows? Does the Windows kernel offer the technology required for implementing it or is it all in the drivers?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by bug77 View Post
              What is EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and why is it so important it is GPL only?
              It's the FSF's version of digital rights management.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by dargllun View Post
                I'm all for OSS to be sure, but let's not forget that those closed source drivers are giving NV users very decent video acceleration and HDMI audio support, and have been doing so for ages. Something your can't say of, for instance, AMD. There are always two aspects to it: openess of the source and functionality delivered. It's hard to beat NV in the 2nd category.
                Lol I knew someone would say something. I have an AMD APU I have HDMI audio support and video acceleration (whatever xbva can afford, for instance use with VLC).

                I agree that there should be a common API for all video drivers to simply simplify however I guess. As to OS'ing drivers Linux has enough problems with patents and whatnot I think since it's free it should be exempt =).

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
                  Except for a few points:

                  1) First off, in most companies, S/w Coding standards is company proprietary information. So thats why NVIDIA can't just open their drivers.

                  2) The drivers for the H/W are going to be at a VERY low level, and will basically show how NVIDIA accomplished everything in its H/W. You think AMD/Intel would like to see that information? This is especially notable, since NVIDIA has a lot of specialized components on its cards to handle certain tasks (they've hinted at such over the years...)

                  3) If the Kernel does not expose a way for a technology like Optimus to work, then the only way to accomplish it is though drivers. And since NVIDIA will not open their drivers up (nor should they be required to), anyone who opposes NVIDIA's efforts looses the right to complain about the lack of optimus support.
                  Are you on drugs or something? "S/w Coding standards is company proprietary information." Try copyright your odd typing standard. Gaymer2k mixedcase oddballshit v1.0. PROPRIETARY. (lol).

                  I already answered all this with the post you are answering, maybe you should re-read it.

                  And btw, getting wellsupported gfxchip(s) with opensource drivers, is good to have on the TO-DO list. If Nvidia won`t give drivers, well someone else will.

                  Peace Be With You.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Add this to another list of reasons why Steam on linux is a bad idea. Linux is only for running on servers and the OSS religion.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      @Paradox Uncreated

                      Please do us all a favor and get out of here.
                      Your homophobic and insulting way to other users is absolutely a shame.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by flim View Post
                        @Paradox Uncreated

                        Please do us all a favor and get out of here.
                        Your homophobic and insulting way to other users is absolutely a shame.
                        Lol, well cry have a heartattack, do some cottaging and kill yourself I guess.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
                          So why are Nvidia so afraid of opening up their drivers? I mean plenty of worldclass stuff in linux, my own plugins included. They are a hardware seller right? So the drivers that come with are open-source, what harm would it do? And sharing that, does that make anyone more competitive? Think about optimizations from the users aswell. Probably to the point of optimal. And generalized for any driver. So everyone contributes. How can that be negative?

                          Peace Be With You.
                          in my now 5 years (including 3 years of vocational education) I came to the point that there are only 2 reasons to not publish your code as open-source:

                          1. your code is ugly. Really ugly. It's bad designed, variables are badly named and your code is covered in comments that don't actually explain anything since they're long outdated
                          2. you want to make money with your program.

                          While point 2 is not entirely true since there are companies that make money off of their open-source programs, I still don't understand how that's possible.

                          *edit
                          and if your program goes out of the production cycle, there is really only reason 1 to not release the source code.
                          Last edited by Detructor; 10-11-2012, 10:22 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            What happened to people document stuff? If I buy some hardware shouldn`t I be able to do whatever I want with it?
                            I remember people documented stuff so much more before. But then again, assmembly programming was also common. Synths also, imagine if people just gave you a highlevel interface for the midi. MIDI documentation was everywhere. To the point that a technically skilled individual could just read it, and do whatever he wanted with it. Not that MIDI is such a good standard but... Nvidia could do it for the benefit of all. What about doing just that, instead of worrying about the dollar for a change.

                            Peace Be With You.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Detructor View Post
                              in my now 5 years (including 3 years of vocational education) I came to the point that there are only 2 reasons to not publish your code as open-source:

                              1. your code is ugly. Really ugly. It's bad designed, variables are badly named and your code is covered in comments that don't actually explain anything since they're long outdated
                              2. you want to make money with your program.

                              While point 2 is not entirely true since there are companies that make money off of their open-source programs, I still don't understand how that's possible.

                              *edit
                              and if your program goes out of the production cycle, there is really only reason 1 to not release the source code.
                              I can`t really think of any good reason either. Atelast tools. If people don`t want to release source for games or an actual work of art, music, graphics, fine. But I really think the tools should be open source. Carmack releases his engines after some time though, which is nice. Ultimately I guess also gameengines that are opensource will be good enough. But it takes some dedicated development. Doing that only for 10 yrs gives you an edge.

                              Peace Be With You.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by dargllun View Post
                                I'm all for OSS to be sure, but let's not forget that those closed source drivers are giving NV users very decent video acceleration and HDMI audio support, and have been doing so for ages. Something your can't say of, for instance, AMD. There are always two aspects to it: openess of the source and functionality delivered. It's hard to beat NV in the 2nd category.
                                I know that and I never denied it (although OSS drivers are improving). But the truth is, that there's no reason to use Linux except for the fact that it's open source. If all I cared about was functionality delivered, then I'd use Windows: NVIDIA makes good drivers for Windows, too. Instead, I choose Linux because of its unique features, which stem from it being open source.

                                NVIDIA don't care about the open source community (which is no longer, if it ever was, made up of enthusiasts and free software philosophers, but instead it comprises very successful commercial companies and millions of average Joes who don't even know that the products they use and love couldn't exist without open source software), and they are the last computer company behaving this way. Well, they and Microsoft.

                                One second after NVIDIA (or ATI or whoever) release a new batch of graphics cards, they stop giving a damn about the older generation of cards and the millions of people who bought them. This means that as soon as a new OS release is out, the functionality delivered for people using binary drivers with "old" hardware drops to zero.
                                The only ones who assure that users are able to continue upgrading their OS without losing the functionality of their hardware are the kernel's developers, and they can do it only as long as the drivers are open source. The same thing can be said about their ability to fix bugs.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X