Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Samsung Puts Out New Open-Source ARM DRM Driver

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    Why would someone use a lot less advanced kernel?
    Maybe because it's simpler & smaller and does all they need? (I'm answering the general question here, I don't know why they did in this case.)

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by JanC View Post
      Maybe because it's simpler & smaller and does all they need? (I'm answering the general question here, I don't know why they did in this case.)
      They need *nix kernel and the best kernel is linux. It can be made smaller as they see fit and recieves way more attention.
      Even then, why close it and all around BADA down?

      They want closed source kernel, that:
      1) helps copy-paste other source (ie steal), so no one can track it down and sue them
      2) helps cover same code, but its patented, so no one can sue them
      3) they want that "technological advantage", same way as microsoft, nvidia, apple and amd. The only good guy here was google
      4) they donīt want people to use the phone as they see fit. They donīt want people to remove pre-installed spyware and governmental spying

      Unlike crappy samsung, google just purchased motorola with its IP and got all problems solved whilst retaining full open-source model(except for some of google own spying applications, on which they base their income; but they allow completely-opensource system drop-in replacement).

      Comment


      • #18
        arm sucks

        I was hooked on to arm very strom 1 or 2 years ago. There was this plug-pcs and stuff there. It looked good no windows support cheap and low power consumption and for much stuff it seemed fast enough. And I thought if they dont support windows they have to support Linux very good. That was a wrong conclusion.

        The grafics stack suck, no open 3d support, good that disqualifies arm for me for desktop devices. But ok there are still some server-tasks that devices could do, but again fail, 1. plugpcs are a danger of your home because they are so shity designed that creating a fire in your home is one feature. Then even if you want to risk that, they are pretty slow a pentium 3 would be faster. so ok there are other devices that are not that risky designes. lets look at the nases, what do we have the interesting devises < 150,- have all maximaly 256mb ram, thats way to less and this at times where you can buy 8gb ram for 30 bugs or so.

        And then there is fusion from amd, with as example zacate uses 20 instead of 10 watts and is nearly as cheap but makes no problems is freely configurable (8gb ram can be installed) so why the hell should I use arm for more than my mobile and my wlan-router, as much as I can I will avoid arm, because they just suck and want to fight linux with no 3d drivers and stuff.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
          as much as I can I will avoid arm, because they just suck and want to fight linux with no 3d drivers and stuff.
          The vast majority of GPUs in shipping ARM systems come from Imagination Technologies (SGX in the high and now medium end devices, MBX for very low end stuff, typically not too much more than QVGA and doing simple scenes rather than image composition), not from ARM Ltd.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
            Why would someone use a lot less advanced kernel?

            If the answer is that they donīt like linux architecture, why would they take *nix like kernel?
            For many reasons ranging from not needing the complexity or the bulk of a "more advanced" kernel and proper access to technologies and features not found in the linux kernel some of which is because incompatible licensing.

            Its because they wanted linux,
            but they wanted it proprietary.
            It's more like they didn't want to be restricted to the terms of the GPL which is a valid concern for many reasons.

            And here comes BSD deepsheep, eat us alive, yeah!

            Oīsamsung, oīgarbage

            I'll also point out that there is a crapload of devices and projects that utilize GPL code that are not it compliance. GPL doesn't do sweet squat until someone has the time and financial ability to protect those terms. Like I said before, I guarantee you that you have personally benefited from a permissive license. In fact I guarantee you that your linux system has a lot of code uses such licenses. That is the great thing about BSD like licenses is that it allows EVERYONE to utilize it, not just a select group.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
              For many reasons ranging from not needing the complexity or the bulk of a "more advanced" kernel
              Yeah, then they cut linux kernel to their desires. Same as google did.

              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
              and proper access to technologies and features not found in the linux kernel some of which is because incompatible licensing.
              Such as?
              GPL and BSD are perfectly compatible. To the point someone decides to steal the code, close it down and start charging upon it. This is protection of freedom: to tolerate all, except those who doesnīt tolerate freedom is GPL main advantage and protection. Yeah, GPL protects freedom, not only declares it. And in event someone wants to sell the code, he is free to dual-license it as special case. And again, in such case he will benefit the original creator, he wonīt just get away with stealing. And for the cases someone wants to share to the point of do-anything-you-want, he gives it in public domain. The license text will be cut anyway and code obfuscated, so BSD makes no difference.

              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
              It's more like they didn't want to be restricted to the terms of the GPL which is a valid concern for many reasons.
              Yeah, exactly, they prefer BSD to GPL for only reason - the difference in licensing. Cristal clear as water - they want to take and close it down. And they donīt want anyone looking inside their code, for whatever legal reasons.

              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
              I'll also point out that there is a crapload of devices and projects that utilize GPL code that are not it compliance. GPL doesn't do sweet squat until someone has the time and financial ability to protect those terms.
              Two single points where I agree with you. But do americans protect their constitution? Or russians? Most of times, no Any legal act requires enforcement, nothing special.

              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
              Like I said before, I guarantee you that you have personally benefited from a permissive license. In fact I guarantee you that your linux system has a lot of code uses such licenses. That is the great thing about BSD like licenses is that it allows EVERYONE to utilize it, not just a select group.
              I have no problem with the code using this license, I have problem when the amount of code using this license expands to the scale of whole kernel.
              Reason?

              Using educational centers as pets to empower their local research subdivision. Giving only portions of code back and separating it (by amount of effort and time needed to learn, by design, by market share, by patents) so that students actually learn and advance proprietary parts instead of collaborating with commercial sector on completely open basis.

              Slave 2nd class sheep feeding aristocratic wolves. Deanjo, youīre using and working for Apple. Why not *BSD? Cause *BSD is not good for desktop. And it cannot be done better for desktop, cause Apple doesnīt give much away, following their (BSD) license. Yet Apple took whole whoop of technology from them, for free. Professors carrying out development of their own system, on their own; sometimes getting pieces from the table and dreaming to work elsewhere. Awesome Sounds a lot like ReactOS, but in unix way

              You claimed I benefited from it in linux, you surely mean CUPS etc. But, donīt you claimed some months ago that CUPS sucks in linux? Cause, yes it prints, but it is hardly usable: the network functionality is not a problem - the problem is drivers, and CUPS or its license does not change anything. Kodak for example, does MacOSX drivers, but completely ignores linux. Iīm proud to use HP <3, but yes I use alternative ink.
              Last edited by crazycheese; 08-28-2011, 07:23 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                Such as?
                GPL and BSD are perfectly compatible. To the point someone decides to steal the code, close it down and start charging upon it. This is protection of freedom: to tolerate all, except those who doesnīt tolerate freedom is GPL main advantage and protection. Yeah, GPL protects freedom, not only declares it. And in event someone wants to sell the code, he is free to dual-license it as special case. And again, in such case he will benefit the original creator, he wonīt just get away with stealing. And for the cases someone wants to share to the point of do-anything-you-want, he gives it in public domain. The license text will be cut anyway and code obfuscated, so BSD makes no difference.
                Oh such as items like the offering that are out on a CDDL license just for example although there are many more. ZFS, dtrace, etc

                Yeah, exactly, they prefer BSD to GPL for only reason - the difference in licensing. Cristal clear as water - they want to take and close it down. And they donīt want anyone looking inside their code, for whatever legal reasons.
                Not necessarily, several companies that utilize BSD like licenses have contributed back to the projects.

                Two single points where I agree with you. But do americans protect their constitution? Or russians? Most of times, no Any legal act requires enforcement, nothing special.
                You better believe Americans do protect their constitution as do Canadians with their Charter of Rights and Freedoms and defending those rights and freedoms usually have publicly funded departments to help defend those rights even if you cannot afford it personally.

                I have no problem with the code using this license, I have problem when the amount of code using this license expands to the scale of whole kernel.
                Reason?

                Using educational centers as pets to empower their local research subdivision. Giving only portions of code back and separating it (by amount of effort and time needed to learn, by design, by market share, by patents) so that students actually learn and advance proprietary parts instead of collaborating with commercial sector on completely open basis.
                The original free code is still free. If someone changes or adds onto it then that is their code to do with as they feel fit. If that means giving back in a public manner all the better but it should not be a requirement. It's the freedom of choice.

                Slave 2nd class sheep feeding aristocratic wolves. Deanjo, youīre using and working for Apple.
                I haven't worked for Apple for a few years now (going on three). In fact my current employer develops GPL software.

                Why not *BSD? Cause *BSD is not good for desktop. And it cannot be done better for desktop, cause Apple doesnīt give much away, following their (BSD) license. Yet Apple took whole whoop of technology from them, for free. Professors carrying out development of their own system, on their own; sometimes getting pieces from the table and dreaming to work elsewhere. Awesome Sounds a lot like ReactOS, but in unix way
                Yes Apple used BSD licensed code as the license clearly allows. The original authors of that code still offer that code to anyone.

                You claimed I benefited from it in linux, you surely mean CUPS etc. But, donīt you claimed some months ago that CUPS sucks in linux? Cause, yes it prints, but it is hardly usable: the network functionality is not a problem - the problem is drivers, and CUPS or its license does not change anything. Kodak for example, does MacOSX drivers, but completely ignores linux. Iīm proud to use HP <3, but yes I use alternative ink.
                I wasn't even thinking of CUPS but that would be one example. Just look at your system and think, what is there that is BSD, PD, MIT licensed? Lets just look at SQLite for example which is a huge dependency for many open source projects. You probably have a dozen appliances alone that use it so don't try to pass the impression that those licenses only benefit the commercial guys. It benefits everybody. from coders to end users to developers.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                  Oh such as items like the offering that are out on a CDDL license just for example although there are many more. ZFS, dtrace, etc
                  CDDL is a bad example IMO. Sun specifically designed that license to be incompatible with the GPL because Linux was their main competition. If Linux had been licensed BSD, you can bet the CDDL would have been incompatible with that instead.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                    Oh such as items like the offering that are out on a CDDL license just for example although there are many more. ZFS, dtrace, etc
                    Deanjo, my friend, you had had so much fun explaining me what BSD allows to do (which I know), that you have drifted away from my original claim
                    Why would a company use other-than-linux kernel if they need most versatile *nix configuration?
                    And even if they love BSD, why on the earth close it down? I think I have already made points which no one denied.
                    Further, it is beyond my understanding why would Samsung need ZFS and dtrace on their phone?


                    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                    Not necessarily, several companies that utilize BSD like licenses have contributed back to the projects.
                    This is not a scenario to get in 95% cases. On contrary this is scenario in GPL in 95% cases.
                    Iīm unaware of any "contribute back" in BSD, except when they want some portion of code to be "outsourced for free development" and the company doing this, usually has the subject patented as additional protection.

                    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                    You better believe Americans do protect their constitution as do Canadians with their Charter of Rights and Freedoms and defending those rights and freedoms usually have publicly funded departments to help defend those rights even if you cannot afford it personally.
                    Yeah, what I see is Mexico cartel war for 25 years in front of yer noises, yet youīre on quest for "democracy" against own-funded Taliban, based on very vague and barely researched 9/11.
                    Yer removing Kudafee which you have sponsored before under same claims of democracy and managed to drag whole Europe in you own financial balloon, made by privately held banks incl. Federal Reserve.
                    The us-corporation has complete control of your whole nation and the laws are corporate-friendly. Thanks to bringing software patents to Europe by the way.
                    40 years before, you could claim to have some democracy, but now you better please first look at yourself as nation, before telling others of their ideals.
                    But I give you one point valid, if US desides to go jackass, whole world will be dragged along.

                    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                    The original free code is still free. If someone changes or adds onto it then that is their code to do with as they feel fit. If that means giving back in a public manner all the better but it should not be a requirement. It's the freedom of choice.
                    Freedom can not exist without its protection. Or all humans suddenly come initiate completely transparent society together.

                    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                    I wasn't even thinking of CUPS but that would be one example. Just look at your system and think, what is there that is BSD, PD, MIT licensed? Lets just look at SQLite for example which is a huge dependency for many open source projects. You probably have a dozen appliances alone that use it so don't try to pass the impression that those licenses only benefit the commercial guys. It benefits everybody. from coders to end users to developers.
                    A lot is licensed under other-than-GPL in linux ecosystem, Yet Iīm unaware of anything raw BSD-like to be useful for non-developer; its all in proprietary wrappers.
                    The BSD-sheep is perfect match for hungry wolves. The BSD-sheep can befriend GNU-gnu too, they can peacefully coexist together. But gnuīs primary difference and advantage is its HORNS to deal with lucrative proprietary wolves.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      1. Deanjo didn't live in the USA last time I looked.

                      2. The entire graphics stack is BSD-licensed (X11) and I wouldn't call it "developer only" or "proprietary only".

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                        1. Deanjo didn't live in the USA last time I looked.

                        2. The entire graphics stack is BSD-licensed (X11) and I wouldn't call it "developer only" or "proprietary only".
                        1. He mentioned US to be democracy (while in reality I donīt think democracy exists anywhere on the planet), so ...

                        2.1. Licensing stack with BSD is good for AMD to take the features back into the proprietary driver. Which means amd effort is less opensource, but more opencore (primary reasons I departed myself from AMD equipment for unspecified amount of time); still AMD provides documentation and some developer input for its non-windows manifestation, hence BSD is not pure rip-off;but valid give-recieve with proprietary leaching allowed. Again, this case is way different with Samsung.

                        2.2. BSD-licensed gfx stack could be used in other OSes, that are not-so-GPL friendly, for whatever reasons. Like BSD itself and Haiku. Why these OSes prefer BSD instead of GPL is their own choice; but it does not get long away from the points I mentioned about whats possibly be reason for Samsung actions.

                        Why modern IT corporations are not basing their income solely on input they create in the projects (which would be perfect for GPL), instead of setting everything off as proprietary/public as landlords, is beyond my understanding.
                        Last edited by crazycheese; 08-29-2011, 08:42 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by mwendt View Post
                          As for "big mess" with embedded GPUs - ARM (Mali), Imagination (PowerVR), Qualcomm (Adreno) all have GPL kernel drivers which is more than you can say about e.g. nVidia or AMD on the x86 front. (AMD supports developers of open driver, but don't provide any themselvs.)
                          AMD has several in house developers, including myself, that have done a large amount of the open source driver work.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                            2.1. Licensing stack with BSD is good for AMD to take the features back into the proprietary driver. Which means amd effort is less opensource, but more opencore (primary reasons I departed myself from AMD equipment for unspecified amount of time); still AMD provides documentation and some developer input for its non-windows manifestation, hence BSD is not pure rip-off;but valid give-recieve with proprietary leaching allowed. Again, this case is way different with Samsung.
                            AMD didn't really have a preference on the license for the open source driver per se. The use of an X11 license came more from the fact that the existing drm and xorg ddx code were licensed X11 to begin with so we adopted the project licenses. Our goal is to sell hardware. One nice advantage the X11 license is that other smaller OSes (proprietary or open source) can use the X11 licensed driver code directly so it provides a nice reference for OSes that we are not able to support directly.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by agd5f View Post
                              AMD has several in house developers, including myself, that have done a large amount of the open source driver work.
                              my appologies, I stand corrected!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by agd5f View Post
                                AMD didn't really have a preference on the license for the open source driver per se. The use of an X11 license came more from the fact that the existing drm and xorg ddx code were licensed X11 to begin with so we adopted the project licenses. Our goal is to sell hardware. One nice advantage the X11 license is that other smaller OSes (proprietary or open source) can use the X11 licensed driver code directly so it provides a nice reference for OSes that we are not able to support directly.
                                Yes, if AMD wanted to support all the platforms it had to go something near BSD (cause some platforms deny freedom protection) and using same license as X11 makes everything easier.
                                But in the case of samsung, there is no start for project, there is no programming of something completely new, there is just case of taking BSD code and closing it down.
                                It is as if samsung takes X11 and closes it down for own system. Bad for samsung & others (unless they giveback, but still bad) and exactly the case why GPL is better. Exactly the case why android is better.

                                I have a feeling that google will revoke samsung license forced by their actions, the smartphone market gets even more fragmented and then comes Elop2 and buys samsung mobile together with its bada.
                                I donīt understand why the heck samsung needs this, why not fork android?!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X