Page 1 of 33 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 329

Thread: Bickering Continues About NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,136

    Default Bickering Continues About NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

    Phoronix: Bickering Continues About NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

    The fight continues about not changing the Linux kernel symbols for DMA-BUF so that NVIDIA can support NVIDIA Optimus Technology within their proprietary graphics driver...

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    62

    Default

    One can only hope Alan Cox and every retarded kernel dev including Linus "Fuck You" Torvalds will die a horrible, slow, painful death.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,932

    Default

    No need to be so objective and neutral, Michael, tell us whose side you're really on :P

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    329

    Default

    As much as I'd like to see a proper OSS NVidia driver.... can't they simply write a dual-licensed GPL/proprietary wrapper around this exported function, release this very wrapper as OSS and use their wrapper from the binary blob?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oleid View Post
    As much as I'd like to see a proper OSS NVidia driver.... can't they simply write a dual-licensed GPL/proprietary wrapper around this exported function, release this very wrapper as OSS and use their wrapper from the binary blob?
    I would guess this will be the next step if Cox won't budge. Personally I think Cox is overreacting zealot. In the long run it's better for Linux ecosystem to allow this instead of making vendors do more unnecesary work that would be better spent making their drivers better for example. I would want to have oss drivers as well but I want full working functionality of my hardware even more.
    Last edited by tehehe; 10-18-2012 at 12:37 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    504

    Default

    Mauro Carvalho Chehab brings it to the point imho:
    http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/li...er/002715.html
    If you read the Kernel COPYING file, it is explicitly said there that the Kernel
    is licensing with GPLv2. The _ONLY_ exception there is the allowance to use
    the kernel via normal syscalls:

    "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."

    The usage of EXPORT_SYMBOL() is not covered there, so those symbols are also
    covered by GPLv2.

    As the usage of a kernel symbol by a proprietary driver is not explicitly
    listed there as a GPLv2 exception, the only concrete results of this patch is
    to spread FUD, as EXPORT_SYMBOL might generate some doubts on people that
    don't read the Kernel's COPYING file.

    With or without this patch, anyone with intelectual rights in the Kernel may
    go to court to warrant their rights against the infringing closed source drivers.
    By not making it explicitly, you're only trying to fool people that using
    it might be allowed.
    So renaming this symbols is pure nonsense.

    The Nvidia devs should talk to their lawyers and stop annoying kernel devs.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oleid View Post
    As much as I'd like to see a proper OSS NVidia driver.... can't they simply write a dual-licensed GPL/proprietary wrapper around this exported function, release this very wrapper as OSS and use their wrapper from the binary blob?
    No, it's not possible. Did you hear about the "viral" nature of GPL? They will have to rewrite their DMA-BUF equivalent from scratch.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    245

    Default

    Alan Cox logic:
    Advocates Open Source. Forces NVIDIA and it's users to use more closed source code.



    Quote Originally Posted by GT220 View Post
    One can only hope Alan Cox and every retarded kernel dev including Linus "Fuck You" Torvalds will die a horrible, slow, painful death.

    Actually this would probably make things worse in general? 0_o

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigaldo View Post
    Alan Cox logic:
    Advocates Open Source. Forces NVIDIA and it's users to use more closed source code.






    Actually this would probably make things worse in general? 0_o
    Linux Kernel is GPL2 period. Don't like open source? Go somewhere else.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    148

    Default

    All this issue would be non existent if only nVidia went and fixed their own broken hardware (by writing their own DMA-BUF) when they released it.

    They now show up their lazy asses and want to use code they have not contributed to and knew damn well they will need it, it's not like Intel drivers are OSS only since last Monday.

    They need to learn to play nice or they'll just be not welcome here. My opinion on the matter is summed up in a quote from Linus: "Fuck you nVidia".
    Last edited by tomato; 10-18-2012 at 12:57 PM. Reason: clarification

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •