Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

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

  • Originally posted by dh04000 View Post
    Then someone come up with an idea that doesn't involve relicensing anyone's code that allows optimus to be used by the USERs?

    Detail it below.
    I can immediately think of at least three solutions that would still offer choice to the users.
    1) Nouveau. It is free to use this feature.
    2) If nvidia wants to offer this functionality in their blob, they are free to implement it themselves in their userspace driver and advertise its availability for other drivers to use. Somehow, I doubt that anybody would be particularly impressed with this option, though. It would likely go unused.
    3) Don't buy nvidia.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by dh04000 View Post
      So, GPL doesn't mean freedom for the users? It means a few strong armed people get to make decisions for everyone else? Then the GPL means nothing but another way for people to control and menipulate each other. Alan might as well patent it and start sueing other implemetations, becuase he is as bad as Apple/Microsoft.
      GPL is what is called "copyleft". It uses copyright laws to enforce the license. It's pretty much the polar opposite of traditional copyright, but the enforcement is just as strict. For instance, under traditional copyright, people must not redistribute the copyright work. Under GPL, people must redistribute the copyright work. If someone redistributes something that is under traditional copyright, authors can and will sue them. If someone doesn't redistribute something that is under a strong copyleft, authors can and will sue them. So yes, GPL is strict and it is a way to control and manipulate. The difference is that GPL is used to keep the code open at all times and at all costs.

      Comment


      • Doesn't bode well for Android, unless Google has their own method.

        Of course iOS and WinRT won't be encumbered with insanity, so they won't have any problem implementing such a mechanism.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
          DMA_BUF is NOT an external interface used by userspace, it is an internal kernel-only interface between in-kernel modules.
          Xorg is planning of using it as part of dri3.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
            For instance, under traditional copyright, people must not redistribute the copyright work. Under GPL, people must redistribute the copyright work.
            No no no.

            If you modify GPL software, you don't have to redistribute anything. But if you CHOOSE to redistribute, then the resulting code must also be GPL.

            You can combine GPL software and proprietary software to your heart's content, as long as you don't distribute the result to others. GPL is a distribution license.

            The difference is that GPL is used to keep the code open at all times and at all costs.
            No, GPL is used to ensure that if you receive software, you keep the right to modify and redistribute it under GPL terms. It doesn't say anything about the case where you keep the code for yourself and don't pass it on.

            This is very important, because the "viral" FUD bullshit is based on such false premises. GPL doesn't force you to do anything with your code. It only governs the redistribution of code based on GPL code. If you want to distribute versions of GPLed code, it has to be under the GPL.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by WorBlux View Post
              Xorg is planning of using it as part of dri3.
              I don't think they're going to use the kernel interfaces directly, but I'd appreciate a link clarifying how exactly this is supposed to happen.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by johnc View Post
                Doesn't bode well for Android, unless Google has their own method.

                Of course iOS and WinRT won't be encumbered with insanity, so they won't have any problem implementing such a mechanism.
                Linux has had these exact policies all this time and yet Android is the best-selling smartphone OS in the world and nexus 7 is bound to have made Android a good dent in the tablet space, so much for being 'encumbered with insanity'. If Google needs to provide such a 'method' for proprietary drivers then yes, they are fully capable of implementing this, it won't be a 'problem'. Your continued trolling of 'oh god, if Linux doesn't make it easy for proprietary drivers it will fail anytime now' is as hollow as it ever was (and yet you keep on repeating the same bs like a broken record, it's almost as if you had an agenda...).

                Linux success is obviously tied to it's great out-of-the-box support for hardware in all forms which is exactly what their no-binary-drivers-in-kernel-space policy has brought. Again we have NVidia as the last big holdout, and it's discrete gpu heydays are quickly coming to an end on the desktop. Desktop users in general will look on discrete gpu's the way we nowadays snicker at the voodoo architecture which is what nvidia once replaced, as something arcane and obsolete.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                  Linux has had these exact policies all this time and yet Android is the best-selling smartphone OS in the world and nexus 7 is bound to have made Android a good dent in the tablet space, so much for being 'encumbered with insanity'. If Google needs to provide such a 'method' for proprietary drivers then yes, they are fully capable of implementing this, it won't be a 'problem'. Your continued trolling of 'oh god, if Linux doesn't make it easy for proprietary drivers it will fail anytime now' is as hollow as it ever was (and yet you keep on repeating the same bs like a broken record, it's almost as if you had an agenda...).

                  Linux success is obviously tied to it's great out-of-the-box support for hardware in all forms which is exactly what their no-binary-drivers-in-kernel-space policy has brought. Again we have NVidia as the last big holdout, and it's discrete gpu heydays are quickly coming to an end on the desktop. Desktop users in general will look on discrete gpu's the way we nowadays snicker at the voodoo architecture which is what nvidia once replaced, as something arcane and obsolete.
                  lol... ok. you win teh internets for the day.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                    Linux has had these exact policies all this time and yet Android is the best-selling smartphone OS in the world and nexus 7 is bound to have made Android a good dent in the tablet space, so much for being 'encumbered with insanity'. If Google needs to provide such a 'method' for proprietary drivers then yes, they are fully capable of implementing this, it won't be a 'problem'. Your continued trolling of 'oh god, if Linux doesn't make it easy for proprietary drivers it will fail anytime now' is as hollow as it ever was (and yet you keep on repeating the same bs like a broken record, it's almost as if you had an agenda...).

                    Linux success is obviously tied to it's great out-of-the-box support for hardware in all forms which is exactly what their no-binary-drivers-in-kernel-space policy has brought. Again we have NVidia as the last big holdout, and it's discrete gpu heydays are quickly coming to an end on the desktop. Desktop users in general will look on discrete gpu's the way we nowadays snicker at the voodoo architecture which is what nvidia once replaced, as something arcane and obsolete.
                    Interesting that you bring up the old voodoo cards... because they were pretty similar to this dual-GPU stuff we're dealing with now. They were a high performance (for the time) 3D graphics accelerator (i.e., discrete GPU) hooked in to the existing 2D graphics card (i.e. IGP) by a special wire. The nice thing about voodoo, though, was that it didn't need special wacky software interfaces to tie the two pieces of hardware together -- they were literally WIRED together to work this way.

                    Maybe nvidia should consider this as a solution... shouldn't be any kind of licensing issue, since they own what is left of 3dfx....

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                      This is very important, because the "viral" FUD bullshit is based on such false premises. GPL doesn't force you to do anything with your code. It only governs the redistribution of code based on GPL code. If you want to distribute versions of GPLed code, it has to be under the GPL.
                      Uhm, but that's a given. Does a license that governs what you can do with anything in private exist to begin with? I don't know any. As far as I know, you can reverse-engineer and decompile anything you wish, as long as it's private and not distributed, there are no problems. And if you don't distribute what you do, it is pretty much as good as not existing. Sure, you can ignore all licenses when making something to run on a private server, but that's pretty much as far as you can go with that. So there are no false premises here, it's already implied as such.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X