Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

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

  • Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

    Phoronix: Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

    Going back to the beginning of this year there's been talk of NVIDIA looking at Optimus support for Linux and in August they confirmed they were working on NVIDIA Optimus Linux support. As part of their Optimus Linux implementation they want to use DMA-BUF for the multi-GPU interactions just like the open-source drivers, so that they can all work together. However, kernel developers continue to reject this notion...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTIwNDI

  • #2
    Well, what have you expected?

    You just DO NOT modyfy somebody else code to just change the license. You just do not.

    You ASK for such change.

    Comment


    • #3
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        Well, I won't blame the kernel devs for preventing Linux to become stuffed up with more proprietary software.

        Comment


        • #5
          They don't release code. They don't help with code written by others. They don't even release documentation. But now that they're not having the upper hand, they ask if pretty please Linux itself can weaken its license status in order to enable them to continue doing the f**k that they want, as they have continuously done until today. How brazen-faced can you get?

          Anyway, I think that the kernel developers should just give in and allow them to use the API, only because otherwise NVIDIA will probably come up with some proprietary solution, which will be even worse for NVIDIA users. Nothing good is to be expected from NVIDIA when it comes to open source, and binary modules are probably already a GPL violation anyways.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by przemoli View Post
            Well, what have you expected?

            You just DO NOT modyfy somebody else code to just change the license. You just do not.

            You ASK for such change.
            The modification doesn't change the license. The kernel already has this exception when linking userspace interfaces.

            Comment


            • #7
              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.
              Two words

              "patent trolls"

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by WorBlux View Post
                The modification doesn't change the license. The kernel already has this exception when linking userspace interfaces.
                If I contribute code under the clause that all linked code is also under GPL (or compatible), you can't just change that to GPL + Linking Exception. It's a different license.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I am happy with the kernel devs' position on this matter. If Nvidia wants to play in GPL land, they should release their source code under GPL. If not, then FUCK YOU NVIDIA!

                  Not to mention, but in addition to intellectual property license, there is also the very significant security matter to consider in sharing buffers between multiple GPUs, especially when it comes to code that is a closed trap well known backdoor ridden plague like nvidia. Keeping symbols as GPL-only, at least the linked drivers can be audited regarding security concerns. This is obviously not a possibility with closed source crap, so allowing that closed source crap to interface would be introducing even more of a security vulnerability than there would otherwise be in the system.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    What is EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and why is it so important it is GPL only?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by peppepz View Post
                      They don't release code. They don't help with code written by others. They don't even release documentation. But now that they're not having the upper hand, they ask if pretty please Linux itself can weaken its license status in order to enable them to continue doing the f**k that they want, as they have continuously done until today. How brazen-faced can you get?
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by bug77 View Post
                        What is EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and why is it so important it is GPL only?
                        It means that the kernel developers consider something that uses those symbols to be a derivative work of the kernel.

                        Several years ago, there was a troll named Jeff Merkey that wrote proprietary software and had a history of involvement at Novell and Microsoft. He wrote some proprietary Linux kernel modules and lied about the license so that it would let him use GPL-only symbols, and he also suppressed the "kernel is tainted" warning so the user wouldn't see it.

                        From what I can tell, he's just lucky nobody decided that he was important enough to sue or get an injunction against (his business eventually went under not too long after he did that). It certainly angered a lot of kernel developers.

                        Merkey also had a very childish, petty, egotistical attitude and went around and tried slandering several kernel developers that made him angry, including making a libelous statement that one of them had AIDS, among other such nonsense.

                        It seems that particular troll is all but forgotten.

                        I think Nvidia would not let their employees act the way Merkey did, and I'm sure their lawyers won't let them make derivative works of the Linux kernel just because they don't want to risk the legal consequences of that.

                        Nvidia is pushy, and I think what they really want from Linux is something like what FreeBSD has done, where Linux developers stop caring about open source drivers or fixing driver interface bugs and just freezes "something" bugs and all, calls it an ABI, and lets Nvidia do whatever stupid things they want.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Also, the "taint" warning is there for a good reason. It lets the user know they are running the kernel in a configuration that is totally unsupportable by either the upstream kernel developers or by the distribution that the user is running.

                          Yeah, you get an Ubuntu every once in a while that claims they "support" proprietary broken crap drivers, but they really can't. Their ability to support it is the same as your ability to support it. They can *ask* the developer and *hope* that it gets fixed, some month, year, ever....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by DaemonFC View Post
                            It means that the kernel developers consider something that uses those symbols to be a derivative work of the kernel.
                            Ok, but what is it? Because if were just a list of symbols, the situation would be rather ridiculous.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by bug77 View Post
                              Ok, but what is it? Because if were just a list of symbols, the situation would be rather ridiculous.
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X