Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NVIDIA, Mentor Graphics May Harm GCC

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

  • Nille
    replied
    In the hole discussion it look like some people forget something. The Topic is not only the Output. We have a API in GCC, Open ACC. The Hole API is only usable if you has a Nvidia Card and use the Nvidia BLOB. So i don't care if the GCC can create a Output for the CUDA Runtime, but i have a problem with it if they don't support the FOSS Way. This means the OpenCL Runtime of a other FOSS Runtime or a documented Instruction Set.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nille
    replied
    Originally posted by IanS View Post
    ARM:
    http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp
    http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic...RC0001_UAL.pdf

    Imagination:
    http://www.imgtec.com/mips/developers/whitepapers.asp

    Qualcomm:
    You need to sign up with https://developer.qualcomm.com/ to access anything useful that is specific to Qualcomm products, but both Adreno and Snapdragon use the ARM ISA anyhow so it isn't a big deal in this case.

    It took me less than 5 minutes to find all of this.
    And all are only for the CPU and not GPU

    Leave a comment:


  • Nille
    replied
    Originally posted by Temar View Post
    but about the new backend which obviously requires a nvidia card.
    And not only a Nvidia Card it also requie the hole Nvidia BLOB.

    Leave a comment:


  • tarceri
    replied
    Originally posted by johnc View Post
    GCC can be used to create non-free output... hence I'm not seeing the problem here.
    Round and round we go weeee.

    The problem is obvious your mind is so closed you can not accept any of the reasoned responses myself and others have given. Licencing is not the issue here and never has been. This is a matter of principals.
    Yes you can create non-free output but this is a side effect that is allowed rather than an explicit goal. Targeting PTX in gcc would have no other use than to produce non-free output as I have explained multiple times and so have others here:

    Originally posted by IanS View Post
    There is nothing about this that would violate the license of the GCC, but since GCC is managed by the very political FSF one does have to consider what sort of implications this holds for FSF and their Free software agenda. (Whether or not you agree with that agenda is not at issue here, but it must be recognized as a valid consideration in their decision on accepting this into one of their projects.)

    Leave a comment:


  • johnc
    replied
    Originally posted by tarceri View Post
    As I have been saying the issue is adding this support to GCC would be creating a situation where the assembler code could ONLY be used by proprietary software. Sure an open compiler might come in the future but currently that isnt so.
    GCC can be used to create non-free output... hence I'm not seeing the problem here.

    The author hasn't clarified exactly what the poison is. That's why I feel the intention here was the all-too-common "let's throw some red meat to the nvidia haters who think nvidia is a bunch of meanieheads because they prefer closed source."

    Leave a comment:


  • johnc
    replied
    Originally posted by Bernard Swiss View Post
    Ummm... No.

    There's these things called licences, and the maintainers of the GCC have to adhere to the ones for GCC, and for GCC contributions, just like developers of proprietary code have to adhere to the licenses on their code and for proprietary code inclusions. The GCC developers don't have the option of just saying "screw it -- we'll change the license."
    Which is precisely my point. The idea that Mentor Graphics is "selling out gcc to nvidia" and therefore we're doomed is kooky talk. The maintainers won't be accepting anything that's incompatible with the license.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bernard Swiss
    replied
    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
    Either thats not true, because there are this big big retards out there that care about freedom and hinder the success of such stuff you like and in macosx or windows u would not have such freedom "retards", or the other OSes have even bigger problems.

    If last is true, why do you use such harsh words for such small problems, or do you call everybody a asshole or worse stuff, or try to piss on the reputation of a professional journalist, or call it blogger doesnt matter, just because he has a slightly different oppionion on stuff than u?

    If thats only a small problem why this extreme anger, I dont get it.

    lets say u are right, and there are 50% very pragmatic lets even say there would be 80% very pragmatic and 20% very fanatic people in that community from your viewpoint, except even the pragmatic linus gave nvidia a "f you", why would I want to stay there, what does macosx really worse than linux except its unfree? Its hard to say but they do a pretty good job and on some fronts there even ahead, so why choose linux if you dont care about freedom?

    to the pragmatic guys, of course 80% are at least a bit pragmatic at least in what they are using (unfree bioses and firmwares...) but that doesnt neccessary mean that they all not wish 100% free software as their goal, they are maybe willing to take some compromises to come the goal closer but that doesnt mean that they dont share the same ideals.

    Basicly they are just not united in what the right way to get to that goal is, just get market dominance first, and care a bit less about freedom, or getting 100% freedom first and then get slowly more and more people to this 100% freedom.

    Maybe thats a bit simplified and only my opinion but k.

    And of course thats worth a news. the readers of this article can than desite for themself if they think that issiue is really a problem or not. So hidding such information just to calm some nvidia-fanboys is not the job of bloggers or journalists or something between.
    People are constantly confusing "pragmatism" and mere "expediency".

    Most of the people who complain about "free software fanatics" are making this mistake.

    It may be expedient to focus on what seems like it might make life "easier" in the short run, while discounting the longer-term consequences. But in the long run, these short term compromises would paint Free Software and Open Source Software into a corner, where it would eventual starve to death. The FOSS perspective is actually the more pragmatic one, because it recognises that these long-term consequences, if ignored, would gradually but inevitably accumulate, undermine and rot FOSS from within.

    Those "small" problems you refer to are like those tiny root tendrils in concrete -- over time, if over-looked or ignored, and allowed to persist, they unceasingly exert a surprising and growing amount of pressure, and gradually put persistently insinuate themselves themselves throughout the entire structure till it crumbles into rubble. It might be expedient to ignore them, or it might even seem clever to use them to anchor the odd bracket, but the truly pragmatic, if inconvenient and more laborious, course of action is to deal with them promptly and thoroughly, and not allow them to get well established -- they're a much bigger problem then, and much harder to get rid of.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bernard Swiss
    replied
    Originally posted by johnc View Post
    I'm not sure why you think this is such a concern. Are the maintainers of GCC not capable of including and excluding as they wish?
    Ummm... No.

    There's these things called licences, and the maintainers of the GCC have to adhere to the ones for GCC, and for GCC contributions, just like developers of proprietary code have to adhere to the licenses on their code and for proprietary code inclusions. The GCC developers don't have the option of just saying "screw it -- we'll change the license."

    The relevant consequence here is that the licenses on Free/Open Source Software projects and the licences on proprietary software can be quite incompatible, and the project may not be able to to anything about it, even should they want to (and developers of FOSS software have well-considered, clearly-articulated reasons for most definitely NOT wanting to -- indeed, those reasons are not infrequently a major reason for such project's very existence in the first place).

    There's no point in those who favour proprietary software complaining about this (in fact, it's rather hypocritical for them do do so -- it essentially boils down to wanting it both ways, getting the benefits of access to FOSS, but not the responsibilities).

    NVidia (management) is trying very hard to milk the benefits of FOSS development, while excluding others from the benefits -- this is an on-going pattern of behaviour. And this story would be just the latest example of this kind of this pattern of "what's yours is ours, but what's ours is ours -- we expect to benefit from your efforts, but you can't benefit from ours, unless we can't figure some scheme to make it a lot less useful to you than to us." Oddly enough, the proposed exploitees don't care much for this approach.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bernard Swiss
    replied
    Originally posted by stiiixy View Post
    Hear, here!

    The greatest irony is his conception that open-source poeple dont work hard and that nVidia does. Classic. It's as if free labour after work hours (unless you're paid to work on open-stuffs) is less than worthless, and people doing the exact same thing on closed-stuffs are a race unto themselves. Mmmm, I can smell their rosy turds from here.

    Delish!
    {Applause}

    Leave a comment:


  • tarceri
    replied
    Originally posted by johnc View Post
    GCC can be used to create non-free programs; is this encouraging the use of proprietary software?

    What part of this license is going to be violated by this method?

    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1-faq.html
    That licence exception is about what licence output from the compilation process is under. In other word what licence the compiled code is under. This has nothing to do with what we have be discussing.

    Adding a new feature to gcc that can only be used in combonation with proprietary software is this encouraging the use of proprietary software.

    Originally posted by johnc View Post
    From above:
    I use GCC in conjunction with proprietary assemblers and/or linkers to compile my program. Can I still take advantage of the exception?

    Yes. The Compilation Process ends when the compiler generates Target Code, which includes output that is ?suitable for input to an assembler, loader, linker and/or execution phase.? In other words, the Compilation Process in this case is over when you have assembly code or unlinked object files from GCC, and so it does not involve any proprietary software. It qualifies as Eligible, and the exception is thus available for this program.
    As I have been saying the issue is adding this support to GCC would be creating a situation where the assembler code could ONLY be used by proprietary software. Sure an open compiler might come in the future but currently that isnt so.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X