Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nouveau: NVIDIA's New Hardware Is "VERY Open-Source Unfriendly"

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

  • Originally posted by boltronics View Post
    That's a different story though. When they attack things (generally manufacturers or developers) - which is what we were discussing with regard to manufacturers and microcode, they always look at it from the angle of possible interference to practical application for the end user, since these are products designed for the end user.
    It is the same, no matter whether they are consumers or professionals. RMS also calls on people to not work for companies that produce proprietary software or otherwise take away freedoms from users, even if that means declining a well-paid position or having to commute etc.

    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    I looked back and those threads before, but they all end up with something like "FSF says this because RMS says so, and I'm sure RMS has good reasons".
    Well, RMS is not just anybody at FSF. And if he speaks in public about free software, you can be pretty sure that his speech will be aligned with the FSF's positions.
    The reasons are also explained on the FSF website for everybody to see, which I pointed out in the other thread.

    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    I have trouble believing that. Apart from it being a not-particularly-ethical position ("it's OK as long as we aren't associated with it") I have always heard more practical arguments from FSF, basically the ones I listed earlier.
    Of course you will also hear practical arguments from the FSF why free software is better than proprietary software. They will of course not stay silent on those, but use them to support their position.

    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    That's an interesting thought, although it doesn't jive with the FSF view that binary microcode in a flash is OK while the same microcode loaded by a driver is bad. I don't remember what their position was if the microcode was distributed in the flash but loaded by a driver included in the distro, but if you're talking to them maybe add that to the list.
    There are two different issues here.
    One is, will your computer run only free software? The answer is no in almost all cases, unless you are running a Lemote Yeelong 8089/8101 with the hard disk removed.
    Second is, will your computer work with any of the FSF-approved free distros? The answer can be yes if you have an older NVidia card, but no if you have a Radeon card.

    If the radeon microcode was opened up, a computer with a Radeon GPU could potentially be used in computers which fit the first criterion. If the microcode was put in flash memory somewhere, it could be used with the free distros per the second criterion.

    Comment


    • In fact I can only see one objection against uCode from disk.

      I can see only one valid reason to dislike uCode on disk more than one in flash. If uCode requires special licensing to redistribute it, it poses trouble for, say, some new distro who can't easily obtain permission to redistribute foreign binary. This sucks and it could be one of valid FSF concerns. Because distro would be crippled in terms of hardware support compared to some more lucky entities who got such permission.

      But as long as vendor permits unlimited distribution of code, it is not anyhow worse than some pre-existing code in ROM/flash/etc. So I guess all this zealotry haves little to do with AMD cards (sure, opensource code could be better, but at least, as long as AMD permits distribution and use of their ucodes. they're not anyhow worse than if they were stored in flash).

      Comment


      • Originally posted by chithanh View Post
        One is, will your computer run only free software? The answer is no in almost all cases, unless you are running a Lemote Yeelong 8089/8101 with the hard disk removed.
        ... and if you buy into the (IMO mistaken) belief that binary microcode distributed with the hardware is somehow not a problem, even though the same binary microcode distributed other ways (even with controls on updating) is somehow evil.

        Originally posted by chithanh View Post
        Second is, will your computer work with any of the FSF-approved free distros? The answer can be yes if you have an older NVidia card, but no if you have a Radeon card.
        Another circular argument. You're assuming the rules used to create FSF-approved distros are "right" - I'm arguing that they are not only wrong but are sending a message to users that even the FSF is not happy with (although so far they have not yet been sufficiently unhappy to change it).

        Originally posted by chithanh View Post
        If the radeon microcode was opened up, a computer with a Radeon GPU could potentially be used in computers which fit the first criterion. If the microcode was put in flash memory somewhere, it could be used with the free distros per the second criterion.
        The same would be true if the rules used to create FSF-approved distros were updated -- what I would call "fixed"

        And still we have the case where upgradeable microcode in flash is OK but the same microcode in a file is not.
        Test signature

        Comment


        • Originally posted by SystemCrasher View Post
          I can see only one valid reason to dislike uCode on disk more than one in flash. If uCode requires special licensing to redistribute it, it poses trouble for, say, some new distro who can't easily obtain permission to redistribute foreign binary. This sucks and it could be one of valid FSF concerns. Because distro would be crippled in terms of hardware support compared to some more lucky entities who got such permission.

          But as long as vendor permits unlimited distribution of code, it is not anyhow worse than some pre-existing code in ROM/flash/etc. So I guess all this zealotry haves little to do with AMD cards (sure, opensource code could be better, but at least, as long as AMD permits distribution and use of their ucodes. they're not anyhow worse than if they were stored in flash).
          Yep. I keep coming back to the conclusion that there was a necessary clean-up because a lot of the microcode did not have licenses with appropriate redistribution rights, and that we just got caught up in the enthusiasm. Collateral damage, if you will.

          The NVidia microcode wasn't RE'ed because of an overwhelming desire for freedom, it was RE'ed because NVidia did not provide the microcode with a license allowing redistribution. On the other hand I spent time with distro & AMD legal folks to work up a license that *did* meet redistribution requirements, so NVidia HW gets recommended and ours does not.

          Madness.
          Last edited by bridgman; 02 May 2015, 02:13 PM.
          Test signature

          Comment


          • Originally posted by bridgman View Post
            ... and if you buy into the (IMO mistaken) belief that binary microcode distributed with the hardware is somehow not a problem, even though the same binary microcode distributed other ways (even with controls on updating) is somehow evil.
            The microcode is software, and it is objectively not free software. It can thus never be included in a distribution which is restricted to shipping only free software. Which is totally orthogonal to the question whether proprietary software is evil.

            Originally posted by bridgman View Post
            Another circular argument. You're assuming the rules used to create FSF-approved distros are "right" - I'm arguing that they are not only wrong but are sending a message to users that even the FSF is not happy with (although so far they have not yet been sufficiently unhappy to change it).
            I am just relaying what I think is the FSF's position. I wrote to you before that you are welcome to have a low opinion of that position.

            Originally posted by bridgman View Post
            The same would be true if the rules used to create FSF-approved distros were updated -- what I would call "fixed"
            Of course you can wait for the FSF to change their stance on proprietary software. But I wouldn't hold my breath. It appears that you need to accept the fact that their ethical views cannot be reconciled with yours.

            Originally posted by bridgman View Post
            And still we have the case where upgradeable microcode in flash is OK but the same microcode in a file is not.
            I think I explained this in the post you replied to.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by chithanh View Post
              Of course you can wait for the FSF to change their stance on proprietary software. But I wouldn't hold my breath. It appears that you need to accept the fact that their ethical views cannot be reconciled with yours.
              I accepted that a long time ago -- otherwise I would have had to walk away from the open source effort.

              These days it's just the sheer illogic of the situation that offends me

              Originally posted by chithanh View Post
              I think I explained this in the post you replied to.
              Yes, but your explanation seemed to be a circular argument, basically "it's OK because the FSF-approved distros say so".
              Last edited by bridgman; 02 May 2015, 02:47 PM.
              Test signature

              Comment


              • Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                The NVidia microcode wasn't RE'ed because of an overwhelming desire for freedom, it was RE'ed because NVidia did not provide the microcode with a license allowing redistribution. On the other hand I spent time with distro & AMD legal folks to work up a license that *did* meet redistribution requirements, so NVidia HW gets recommended and ours does not.
                What was the motivation to write a free replacement for the NVidia firmware is inconsequential for inclusion in a free distro. Yes, and even RMS deplores that he has to recommend NVidia hardware, a company he calls hostile to free software.

                Besides, the radeon microcode license forbids reverse engineering, so the only way someone can ethically use proprietary software according to RMS (namely, in order to write a free replacement for it) is legally blocked by AMD. Some people are working on reverse engineering Adreno microcode though, which seems to be quite similar to R600 microcode. So maybe in the future RMS can recommend older AMD hardware.

                Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                Yes, but your explanation seemed to be a circular argument, basically "it's OK because the FSF-approved distros say so".
                No, I explained why firmware in flash is ok in the sense that you could then run free distros with it. Not what I personally consider ok for myself.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by chithanh View Post
                  What was the motivation to write a free replacement for the NVidia firmware is inconsequential for inclusion in a free distro. Yes, and even RMS deplores that he has to recommend NVidia hardware, a company he calls hostile to free software.

                  Besides, the radeon microcode license forbids reverse engineering, so the only way someone can ethically use proprietary software according to RMS (namely, in order to write a free replacement for it) is legally blocked by AMD. Some people are working on reverse engineering Adreno microcode though, which seems to be quite similar to R600 microcode. So maybe in the future RMS can recommend older AMD hardware.
                  I'm sorry, I missed the part where NVidia and Qualcomm licenses allowed reverse engineering. Can you point out the relevant text please ?
                  Test signature

                  Comment


                  • They don't, but people RE'd it anyway. Of course this can get anybody who distributes the code into legal trouble, which was why e.g. the acx100 driver was denied kernel inclusion.

                    Comment


                    • Stupid edit limit.

                      Originally posted by chithanh View Post
                      What was the motivation to write a free replacement for the NVidia firmware is inconsequential for inclusion in a free distro. Yes, and even RMS deplores that he has to recommend NVidia hardware, a company he calls hostile to free software.
                      It's worse than that. FSF's position sends a strongly discouraging message to other vendors thinking about supporting free drivers for their hardware.

                      My point about the motivation was that the arrival of RE'd microcode for NVidia HW ended up leading FSF to a position which seemed convenient at the time but which directly conflicts with almost everything they believe in and are trying to accomplish... and that it was only the combination of redistribution problems and "having nothing to lose" (ie no support from the HW vendor) that drove the community to invest in RE'ing.

                      It's hard to see how that position does anything but discourage future investment from HW vendors, in fact it makes "doing nothing" seem like the winning strategy. Are you sure that's the message we all want to be sending ?
                      Last edited by bridgman; 02 May 2015, 03:12 PM.
                      Test signature

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X