NVIDIA Doesn't Expect To Have Linux 5.9 Driver Support For Another Month

[QwertyChouskie]

Everyone is talking about timely releases for new kernel updates and personal grievances here, but quite frankly, there's a much bigger, more black-and-white issue here: Nvidia was been distributing software linking against GPL-only kernel exports, therefore violating the terms of the GNU GPLv2, which puts Nvidia in copyright infringement territory. As it's put in this article (https://www.synopsys.com/blogs/softw...ght-to-cure/):

"Hence, if some third party is infringing, arguably each one of those many contributors has at least a theoretical right (standing) to sue for breach."

User experiences with Nvidia, good or bad, aren't what matter here, copyright infringement is.

[shmerl]

Nvidia refuses to upstream their driver. Kernel updates bite them in the ass. Nvidia - you'd need to wait. Linux users - no thanks, we'll switch to AMD.

Good job Nvidia, good job.

[cjcox]

That's actually a rather sad issue and not a funny one. Open and closed source should always work together, only this is what true freedom is. It's when they fight each other that everyone loses. People nowadays understand this better, but we still carry around the GPL with its almost militant stance against closed source, which keeps getting in the way.

But, here's the thing. While very true that Linux (actually the best example, not so much for other OS's) tries its best to be about "integration" no matter what. The idea that closed source "things" try to integrate to the same extent is usually not true. In fact, proprietary software often is guilty of "embrace and extend", and even worse of build massive impenetrable houses designed to create forced lock-in scenarios (coercive monopolies) so that open source can't even be considered.

"Militant stance." You have to have worked in the industry for a bit. I can't tell you the number of proprietary non-FOSS projects that do really really really cool things, even by today's standards that were created over the past 30+ years.... all destroyed because of traditional "IP". That's right. Gone. Not in a safe vault somewhere... just gone. One thing I've learned as a software developer is that the GPL preserves and protects IP long term. Something you don't get from proprietary IP, and you don't get from the so called "free-er" OSS licenses where changes can be made and fall victim to the very thing I mentioned.

Is that militant? Or just smart?

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that Nvidia MUST convert to the GPL. The suggestion is that they'll be better off if they did.

[kylew77]

One of my fears of NVIDIA making their drivers open source and making it part of the Linux kernel is that we'll lose that. Instead of timely first party support, we'll end up having to wait for ages for the Linux drivers to be ported. The RX6000 series are about to be released, but the RX5000 series still aren't supported, and won't be until 13.0 releases next year.

Yeah that is why I had to go with Nvidia for a graphics card for my FreeBSD workstation. AMDGPU lags behind upstream Linux too much unfortunatly.

[geearf]

Its most likely feasibly impossible for NVidia to release their driver as open source due to IP reasons, their binary blob contains IP (i.e. from SG days) and due to 30+ years of work its probably spread throughout their codebase due to how software development works. Then there are other obvious things like trade secrets.

Linux people need to understand that asking companies to do things which are not going to happen for rational reasons is not going to improve the situation, instead they should accept the situation and work with it as much as they can.

Couldn't they at least use nouveau as their kernel driver? I would assume (probably wrongly) that the IP would be in the user-space stuff.

[QwertyChouskie]

Couldn't they at least use nouveau as their kernel driver? I would assume (probably wrongly) that the IP would be in the user-space stuff.

They do for some Tegra setups AFAIR, though I suspect the Nouveau kernel-level driver would need some serious re-work to provide all the features and performance the current blob kernel driver/user-space driver pair provide.

[geearf]

They do for some Tegra setups AFAIR, though I suspect the Nouveau kernel-level driver would need some serious re-work to provide all the features and performance the current blob kernel driver/user-space driver pair provide.

Yeah most likely, but it'd be nice.
It might not be possible because of the signed firmware mentioned before though. :/

[loganj]

Same old tired trolling.

Does anyone force you to use Linux? You have freedom to go and use proprietary shit, so why not do it and leave us alone?

Linux' wealth of hardware support is one of its superpowers. Having open source drivers means that you can use devices on platforms other than what the HW vendor originally intended. Not to mention security and other benefits. It's an utterly logical and conventional position that we want opensource drivers. Nvidia's position is really the exception, here.

Raging against open source is really messing with your head. You cannot even think rationally, any longer.

say what? when was hardware support one of linux superpowers? there are sooooooooooooooooooooooo many devices that still not work and will probably never work on linux and a lot that has very poor implementation

[chithanh]

Does NVIDIA force anyone to buy their GPUs for fuck's sake? Their drivers have always been proprietary in case you haven't noticed.

That is incorrect. You may not be old enough to remember Utah-GLX (precursor to Mesa/DRI) or xf86-video-nv (NVidia-maintained open source 2D-only driver), so that could be excused. But NVidia is developing and maintaining an open source driver called nvgpu, and even there NVidia's behavior has been a source of criticism.

Does NVIDIA develop operating systems which limit your freedom?

NVidia takes copyleft code, adds their own code on top, but does not reciprocate in kind. They can do that on Windows or BSD and nobody would care. But if they do that on Linux they are deservedly called out and shunned for it.

Your train of thought is really messed up. Linux is not in a position to dictate the rules of the game unless you want the OS to be reserved for geeks and IT elite.

Look at how that turned out for the BSDs.

Security benefits? Which ones? I don't remember NVIDIA drivers having been used for a single successful exploitation attempt.

There have been several demonstrable exploitable conditions in NVidia drivers in the past. Or are you saying that every security vulnerability is benign, until someone manages to successfully hack into an organization based on it?

[iterativ]

That's actually a rather sad issue and not a funny one. Open and closed source should always work together, only this is what true freedom is. It's when they fight each other that everyone loses. People nowadays understand this better, but we still carry around the GPL with its almost militant stance against closed source, which keeps getting in the way.

From GNU: If the users don't control the program, the program controls the users. With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the developer or “owner” of the program, that controls the program—and through it, exercises power over its users. A nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power.

There isn't such a thing as a "little free". That is the ideology. Maybe you consider it unimportant or even nonsensical, that's your right. But there are others with different views, don't try to impose anything, just ask to respect it. GPL takes advantage of the copyright law to help the users. Ideally everything should be in public domain, but we are not there yet.