Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

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

  • Originally posted by dh04000 View Post
    The Linux dev's are giving USERS a hard time. They are deprieving USERS of the ability and chioce to use thier system how they want.
    No, they are not. The kernel is GPL and this can't be changed.

    As long as the kernel is GPL, Nvidia can't use DMA_BUF. That's how GPL works. You'd have to relicense the entire kernel, and that's impossible.

    Someone should just fork his code as LGPL
    OMG, the people who post here :facepalm:

    It's better if somebody forks Nvidia's code as LGPL :facepalm:

    If its his code, and he won't let anyone touch it, then we'll use the GPL to against him, and show him its OUR code.
    What the fuck? It's your code? Why? You didn't write it.

    Comment


    • Once again for those who don't understand:

      The only reason why Nvidia can get away with a binary-only blob is that they don't use any part of the kernel, they reimplemented everything in their blob. They only interface with the kernel.

      DMA_BUF integration would mean that they are sharing certain GPL-ed parts of the Linux kernel with in-kernel drivers. You cannot shim around this because you must use the same code that the Intel driver uses. Whatever part touches this is derivative of the Linux kernel.

      Nvidia's licence prevents this. That's the end of the story. You cannot just rename a symbol and then claim that it's legal.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
        What. Users already have plenty of choice. Proprietary or open-source drivers, for instance. I'm sure NVIDIA can figure out something with Optimus on their own, without compromising the kernel and infringing on rights.

        And, uh, if it's his code, he is the decider. And he decided on a license. And the license states that it can't be used with proprietary software. There is nothing that anyone can do about that. Also, I don't think GPL allows relicensing things with a less strict license. And even if it did, well, good luck maintaining the whole relicensed kernel!
        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.

        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.
          Dude, how old are you and when was the last time you read the GPL?

          You have the freedom to inspect, run, modify and redistribute all of Alan Cox' code to your heart's content. The only thing you are not allowed to do (by copyright law) is to relicense his code.

          With the Nvidia blob, you don't have the freedom to inspect, modify, or redistribute, and you are only allowed to run it if you agree to an EULA which limits what you can do with it.

          How confused can you get?

          Linux kernel was GPLed before Nvidia even existed. Almost all major manufacturers are working together with the kernel folks who a) do not want to change their licence and b) cannot change it even if they wanted to. Nvidia's problems are of their own making. The kernel's licence hasn't changed in more than 20 years. If you dislike it, why the hell are you using it?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by RealNC View Post
            The kernel allows closed source software to run on it. DMABUF, being an API that can be used externally, should be exported to be used by anyone, regardless of license. What's next? GPLing the mmap() interface and making it illegal to run non-GPL software under Linux? You seriously think that's a good thing?

            This has nothing to do with licenses. This has to do with AMD and Intel trying to stay ahead of NVidia by abusing their position within the kernel developer community.
            boah, do you need a licence to wade such deep in bullshit? It is like a bullshit avalanche!

            Listen closely: running something in userspace that is a completely different entity using nothing but very well defined interfaces is something COMPLETELY different from abusing kernel internal structures. The first one is just everyday usage. The second one is where licences become involved. Nvidia ignores the GPL and tries to trample on the rights of those who wrote the code.

            And you don't blame them but the kernel devs? Come on, what do you need to take to have such a twisted view of reality.

            If Nvidia really cared, they would either open their driver or support open source driver development. Just like INTEL or AMD.

            NVIDIA even tried to shoot down 2d driver development with code obfuscating and other dirtiness. They are the ones to blame. Nobody else.

            Comment


            • 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