Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

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

  • #31
    Companies like Nvidia they won't release their drivers as open source, and that's because they don't want competition, only monopoly. They prefer less profit with more trouble in order to maintain monopoly. That's why they co-develop and use D3D, because Microsoft gives them monopoly. And now that monopoly is gone, just now they discover OpenGL, and Nvidia wants OpenGL for their next Voxel-Raytracing engine. Were can we benefit: If we produce a Unified_Graphics_Driver, that is multilevel and uses LLVM to target CPUs and GPUs with back-ends, then we can pursue companies like Nvidia to contribute: 1)To open the previous generation until OpenGL3.3 with all the side-things, and when they go to Raytracing they can release OGL4-4.3 with tessellation and compute shaders. 2)To use the new closed generation OGL4-4.3 as extensions for our Unified_GD and only working with Nvidia GPUs. Tessellation_compiler_extra (for example) and the tessellation_program_extra for the synthesizer (for example), plus the TXAA_fx (for example). They can also use our UGD as they please in any operating system. 3)Use only OpenGL from now on, and stop co-develop the D3D any farther.

    Comment


    • #32
      Most kernel devs are paid by AMD and Intel. Of course they reject NVidia's request. Nothing personal; just business, stopping NVidia from providing something competitive to AMD and Intel. I can't say I can blame them though. It's NVidia's own fault. If they had rooted the kernel dev team with more of their own developers, they would have been in a position to change policies.

      What sickens me is that a piece of open source software is now abused for greedy corporate politics. That's ugly.
      Last edited by RealNC; 10-11-2012, 11:43 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        I might be wrong, but I have a feeling that this is not so much about licensing, security, and open drivers, but rather about many kernel developers being sick of Nvidia's antics (including changing licenses within kernel on a whim). You have to see it in the context of Linus' "fuck you" comments.

        I'm guessing that many people don't want to pander to Nvidia anymore.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Detructor View Post
          in my now 5 years (including 3 years of vocational education) I came to the point that there are only 2 reasons to not publish your code as open-source:

          1. your code is ugly. Really ugly. It's bad designed, variables are badly named and your code is covered in comments that don't actually explain anything since they're long outdated
          2. you want to make money with your program.

          While point 2 is not entirely true since there are companies that make money off of their open-source programs, I still don't understand how that's possible.

          *edit
          and if your program goes out of the production cycle, there is really only reason 1 to not release the source code.
          Sorry, you are being *very* naive.
          Here's a number of other reasons:
          1. Your code includes licensed 3'rd party code that cannot be opened.
          2. Your code includes patent-infringing code that will get you sued.
          3. Your code is multi-platform (more on that later) and includes platform specific code that prevents it from being opened.
          4. Your code is being used by clients and you're prohibited by contract from releasing your code.
          etc, etc.

          (putting my proprietary-out-of-tree-kernel-developer-on)
          BTW, its important to note that the nVidia driver code is shared code between Windows, BSD and Linux.
          As far as I know (from speaking with relevant lawyers) once your code is being used (unchanged) in both GPL'ed (Linux) as well as non-GPL'ed environments (Windows and/or BSD) your code can no longer be considered derived work - even though it links directly to (or runs under) the Linux kernel.
          Of-course, as this particular corner case was never put to trial (pun-intended) this is mere legal speculation for now.

          On a personal note (Ignoring for a second that we've yet to hear the code owner's view on the matter), I believe the Linux devs are being right instead of being smart.
          nVidia is actually trying to play nice - I believe this behavior should be encouraged instead of being ignored. (E.g. trying to reach a gentleman's agreement that DMA-BUF will be made EXPORT_SYMBOL in-exchange to some documentation or headers)

          - Gilboa
          DEV: Intel S2600C0, 2xE52658V2, 32GB, 4x2TB + 2x3TB, GTX1080, F27/x86_64, Dell UP3216Q 4K.
          SRV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 4x2TB, GTX550, F27/x86_64, Dell U2711..
          BACK: Tyan Tempest i5400XT, 2xE5335, 8GB, 3x1.5TB, 9800GTX, F27/x86-64.
          LAP: ASUS Strix GL502V, i7-6700HQ, 32GB, 1TB+256GB, 1070M, F27/x86_64.

          Comment


          • #35
            I have a great idea! Somebody should send Nvidia a patch changing the license of the nvidia driver to GPL.

            Oh, they won't do it? Why? They own it, they could do it if they wanted!

            Those who write the code decide what to do with it. Nvidia decides to paddle around in legally murky waters, blocking opensource development as good as they can - and Michael blames the linux devs.

            That is just sick. Sick and cynical.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by RealNC View Post
              Most kernel devs are paid by AMD and Intel. Of course they reject NVidia's request. Nothing personal; just business, stopping NVidia from providing something competitive to AMD and Intel. I can't say I can blame them though. It's NVidia's own fault. If they had rooted the kernel dev team with more of their own developers, they would have been in a position to change policies.

              What sickens me is that a piece of open source software is now abused for greedy corporate politics. That's ugly.
              no kernel dev prevents Nvidia from playing nice. It is Nvidia who acts like a Disney villain and then mouth pieces like Michael blame the ones who were wronged - the kernel devs who wrote the code.

              Comment


              • #37
                The kernel allows closed source software to run on it. DMABUF, being an API that can be used externally, should be exported to be used by anyone, regardless of license. What's next? GPLing the mmap() interface and making it illegal to run non-GPL software under Linux? You seriously think that's a good thing?

                This has nothing to do with licenses. This has to do with AMD and Intel trying to stay ahead of NVidia by abusing their position within the kernel developer community.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by DaemonFC View Post
                  Also, the "taint" warning is there for a good reason. It lets the user know they are running the kernel in a configuration that is totally unsupportable by either the upstream kernel developers or by the distribution that the user is running.

                  Yeah, you get an Ubuntu every once in a while that claims they "support" proprietary broken crap drivers, but they really can't. Their ability to support it is the same as your ability to support it. They can *ask* the developer and *hope* that it gets fixed, some month, year, ever....
                  That is not necessarily true. ZFS taints the kernel because it is not under the GPL, but it is well supported in Gentoo Linux. It is fully open source, so we can fix whatever bugs it has.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
                    2) The drivers for the H/W are going to be at a VERY low level, and will basically show how NVIDIA accomplished everything in its H/W. You think AMD/Intel would like to see that information? This is especially notable, since NVIDIA has a lot of specialized components on its cards to handle certain tasks (they've hinted at such over the years...)
                    You think Intel and AMD don't have the software & hardware needed to reverse engineer both the drivers and the actual hardware of their competitors? (Or the money to pay others to do the reverse engineering.)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Who are these people that want Optimus tech on a router OS?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X