Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
NVIDIA's PRIME Helpers Are Ready For Linux 3.9
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by asdxWhy do you refer to me as a Linux/GPL hater? I don't hate Linux or the GPL, in fact, I'm against the blob.
Fuck the "real world".
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by asdxSo Nvidia got away with their blob and optimus on Linux after all, without contributing anything when it comes to Free software, FOSS and Linux itself.
Crap.
When are people going to start defending and demanding freedom (Free Software) and not just demand close-source solutions like this one that Nvidia is providing?
This is really disappointing.
Nvidia is destroying what made Linux so great in all these years and you guys are like "Horraay! We'll have our optimus!".
You guys are idiots.
But yeah, pretty interesting move isn't it? I mean as a follow up they could simply create such constructs for any kernel API they need access to and laugh at Linus and all the other stupid kernel devs and their GPL kernel pipe dream.
Welcome to the real world!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by GreatEmerald View PostYes, that's true, but then the layer must be non-GPL, and so it can't be a part of the kernel. So I can't see what the patches here achieve. GPL-compliant software can already use DMA-BUF without issues.
The PRIME layer allows drm drivers to expose an ioctl which can pass objects from GEM to a dma_buf file descriptor. An ioctl is a fairly standard way to present a system call to interact with hardware that is difficult to access though more standard system calls.
Prime itself really isn't a shim per say, but should be safe to implement within a shim that enables a proprietary driver. Whereas a shim that exposed dma_buf directly is in legally dangerous territory.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by RealNC View PostWhen you combine BSD code with GPL code (as happens in the kernel), it becomes GPL. The combined work *must* be under GPL.
Leave a comment:
-
When you combine BSD code with GPL code (as happens in the kernel), it becomes GPL. The combined work *must* be under GPL. The reason why non-GPL programs can use the kernel is because of exceptions, not because parts of the kernel don't use the GPL.
As I mentioned earlier (but no one seemed to notice), you wouldn't be able to run non-GPL software on Linux otherwise.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by GreatEmerald View PostHuh, really? Individual files can override the global license? Then what's the point of having a global license to begin with? And what does "relicensing the kernel" even mean in that case? After all, if a code file is under BSD, and people want to relicense the kernel to BSD, then it's not really relicensing for that particular code file...
The "global" license, doesn't really exist. It's just a shorthand for saying, this is the most restrictive licenses we have in there, so everything else has to comply with it.
The kernel graphics drivers, for example, are all BSD licensed, so that they can be ported over to other OS's more easily if anyone wishes to do so.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Ericg View PostWhile I agree drivers should be opensource, thats not the current reality. We have to work within bounds and realities of...well, reality. Intel is open source and doing great. Radeon is shaping up nicely aside from power management and video decoding, Nouveau....is a mess. Though hopefully the open source Tegra code will give some insights into the general design of Nvidia hardware and therefore give the Nouveau devs a boost.
Responisble Thinking FTW!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by uid313 View PostProprietary drivers are not viable.
We have some now, and but we shouldn't have them in the future.
They're not viable, the drivers must be open source.
Leave a comment:
-
Proprietary drivers are not viable.
We have some now, and but we shouldn't have them in the future.
They're not viable, the drivers must be open source.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: