| Bad Linux Politics Just like regular politics... bad politics infest Linux. » lists.freedesktop.org/archives/d···851.html» linux.slashdot.org/story/12/10/1···dfetcher quote:
Mauro Carvalho Chehab mchehab at redhat.com
Wed Oct 10 09:23:14 PDT 2012
Previous message: [PATCH] dma-buf: Use EXPORT_SYMBOL
Next message: [PATCH] dma-buf: Use EXPORT_SYMBOL
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Em Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
Robert Morell escreveu:
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
> issue, and not really an interface". The dma-buf infrastructure is
> explicitly intended as an interface between modules/drivers, so it
> should use EXPORT_SYMBOL instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Robert Morell
NAK, as already explained at:
»lists.freedesktop.org/archives/d···281.html
Regards,
Mauro
Alan Cox alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Wed Oct 10 11:17:02 PDT 2012
Previous message: [PATCH] dma-buf: Use EXPORT_SYMBOL
Next message: [PATCH] dma-buf: Use EXPORT_SYMBOL
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
Robert Morell wrote:
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
> issue, and not really an interface". The dma-buf infrastructure is
> explicitly intended as an interface between modules/drivers, so it
> should use EXPORT_SYMBOL instead.
NAK. This needs at the very least the approval of all rights holders for
the files concerned and all code exposed by this change.
Also I'd note if you are trying to do this for the purpose of combining
it with proprietary code then you are still in my view as a (and the view
of many other) rights holder to the kernel likely to be in breach
of the GPL requirements for a derivative work. You may consider that
formal notification of my viewpoint. Your corporate legal team can
explain to you why the fact you are now aware of my view is important to
them.
Alan
Once again Linux runs off an OEM... They are not going to open source or GPL their drivers, its time to drop this nonsense.. SUPPORT THE OEM's who support Linux!  Those of you with those horrid dual graphics systems are still SOL, thanks to this nonsense. --
1311393600 - Back to Black.....Black....Black.... |
|
|
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Is this that thing about how the linux devs wont let nvidia add optimus support to linux? |
|
| said by me1212:
Is this that thing about how the linux devs wont let nvidia add optimus support to linux?
Yes.
--
1311393600 - Back to Black.....Black....Black.... |
|
 yaplejPremium
join:2001-02-10
White City, OR | reply to TuxRaiderPen
Perhaps I am just ignorant but if the maintainers of Linux feel that the entirety of the Linux kernel should be open source then I can respect that they are determined to hold their ground on this issue.
So we have this dilemma. Kernel remains GLP and some drivers remain closed yet want the benefits of the GLP code. So in this case why are there individuals who insist that its the Kernel developers who should compromise on this issue?
Same holds true in real politics extremists demand one thing and expect everyone else to compromise to their demands. Its admirable that the Kernel team is not compromising.
Whats this mean? Pretty much nothing. You build the driver from ATI/Nvidia and taint your kernel. Big deal life goes on. People disagree and are entitled to without either of them having to compromise.
Anyone who says "party x should just do y" can just go f* off.
--
sk_buff what?
Open Source Network Accelerators
»www.trafficsqueezer.org
»www.opennop.org
|
|
| said by yaplej:the entirety of the Linux kernel should be open source +1
said by yaplej:You build the driver from ATI/Nvidia and taint your kernel. Big deal life goes on. +1 |
|
 MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
1 edit | Lets go over some facts.
1. The Linux kernel code is licensed under the GPLv2.
2. The GPLv2 prohibits proprietary derivatives.
3. Changing the Linux kernel code's license would require contacting every author of every line of code in the current Linux kernel and receiving permission from all of them, or those pieces would need to be rewritten.
So even if there was an atmosphere of general acceptance of proprietary derivatives in the Linux community it would be so hard to do legally as to render it impossible anyways.
People who wish to create derivatives of GPLed code either need to obey the term of the license, or accept that they find the license terms unacceptable. Proprietary software is much more restrictive, but you don't see people pitching a fit about obeying their licensing terms. Hell, in most cases creating derivatives of proprietary code is not allowed and illegal.
The viral nature of the GPL has had some big wins, including the massive amount of GPL code Microsoft wrote to get their Hypervisor to work properly on Linux. So there are some wins, and there are some losses.
Update: Fixed confusing wording.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.blogspot.com
»www.facebook.com/maxolasersquad |
|
 El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
 ·TekSavvy DSL
 ·WIND Mobile
 ·voip.ms
| reply to TuxRaiderPen
I have to ask a question in this case:
How can we not have proprietary Optimus drivers, when we already have proprietary Nvidia/ATI drivers.
Isn't the logic behind each proprietary driver the same?
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have |
|
MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL | said by El Quintron:I have to ask a question in this case:
How can we not have proprietary Optimus drivers, when we already have proprietary Nvidia/ATI drivers.
Isn't the logic behind each proprietary driver the same? I've been curious of the same thing. What is it about Optimus that its drivers won't work like other proprietary drivers?
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.blogspot.com
»www.facebook.com/maxolasersquad |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to El Quintron
I would love to know that. Right now as it is people ether have to use crappy intel hd or use the dedicated gpu 24/7 and slice their battery life. Sure theres »bumblebee-project.org/ but its not the same nor as good(imho) is optimus is on windows boxes.
It just seems wierd nvidia amd and intel already have propriatery drivers for linux, I don't get it. |
|
El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·WIND Mobile
·voip.ms
| It has a limited feature set, but it work well when you are using it. I've been using it even before it forked, and it's added an extra 60-90 mins to my battery life making my battery life comparable to the Windows side.
I'd just like some stuff to activate the GPU in a more automated fashion... and I'd like them to get the HDMI port working without have to mess with sessions and such.
It's a step in the right direction even if it isn't perfect.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to El Quintron
said by El Quintron:I have to ask a question in this case:
How can we not have proprietary Optimus drivers, when we already have proprietary Nvidia/ATI drivers.
Isn't the logic behind each proprietary driver the same?
Linux does not contain proprietary anything. Drivers like these are externally provided and installed and not part of the kernel. |
|
El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·WIND Mobile
·voip.ms
| said by howardfine:Linux does not contain proprietary anything. Drivers like these are externally provided and installed and not part of the kernel.
That doesn't change the nature of my question; if Nvidia and ATI drivers can be provided then why not Optimus ones?
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have |
|
 markofmayhemWhy not now?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
 ·Comcast
| reply to me1212
said by me1212:I would love to know that. Right now as it is people ether have to use crappy intel hd or use the dedicated gpu 24/7 and slice their battery life. Sure theres »bumblebee-project.org/ but its not the same nor as good(imho) is optimus is on windows boxes.
It just seems wierd nvidia amd and intel already have propriatery drivers for linux, I don't get it.
»lwn.net/Articles/154602/
To use both drivers and accurately have them speak to each other, the kernel is used. API in the kernel allows this, without issue. Many of the API's in the kernel have either been patched, moved, or solely created since 2005 in the _GPL session instead of the EXPORT_SYMBOL. This requires the caller to have either a GPL, GPL v2, BSD, MIT, or MPL license ONLY in order to interface with the kernel. Optimus on Windows is allowed to use the OS API in the same space and buffers as Intel's driver; it is not permitted with the Linux kernel due to incorrect choice in licensing. The "oppressing" party is the kernel, here.
Intel's 2d and 3d driver is MIT licensed.
AMD's 3d driver is MIT licensed.
nVidia's shim is GPL licensed.
Intel and AMD can make direct kernel API calls, nVidia can not.
The political debate and pragmatic fallout regarding compatibility with hardware is nothing new. 2006: »lwn.net/Articles/205644/
DMA-BUF is such an API call. While Optimus would certainly take advantage of it, it is Tegra in most need of the call. Firmware graphics handling for ARM SoC's is where the money is (and this does have implications with ARM). Although!!!! take note of the timing, Valve is dumping thousands of man-hours into porting a game over to Linux with nVidia beside them... may be related as well.
Either way, this was foreseen in 2005 when export symbols were split based on developer's "choice" of license... or lack of assimilation, to be more accurate. As kernel API and modules were patched, rewritten, and added; attrition of available "EXPORT_SYMBOL" non GPL calls would force all to a certain choice of license.
said by Alan Cox :The Linux kernel being GPLv2 isn't a problem we can see for the future. It is a distinct work to the applications that run on it, just as Windows kernel is to Windows applications. The more awkward corner cases will be LGPL and similar licenses where you want the benefits and flexibility. The FSF have indicated they understand that and will ensure it works out. The licenses are about having barriers to abuse, not barriers to use. I agree, Alan, yet DMA-BUF API call is SPECIFICALLY not listed in "EXPORT_SYMBOLS" non _GPL to barrier use by license...
said by Alan Cox :Also I'd note if you are trying to do this for the purpose of combining it with proprietary code then you are still in my view as a (and the view of many other) rights holder to the kernel likely to be in breach of the GPL requirements for a derivative work. You may consider that formal notification of my viewpoint. Your corporate legal team can explain to you why the fact you are now aware of my view is important to them. Big man say big words... Using an API call in a GPL shim to return values to an unassociated application is not a "derivative work". Leave legal scare tactics to "the evil" corps like Microsoft, Google and Apple and open the barriers to use the current kernel has in place.
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix |
|
El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·WIND Mobile
·voip.ms
| I was just reading »linux.slashdot.org/story/12/10/1···-dma-buf when I saw this posting...
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have |
|
 SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | reply to TuxRaiderPen
I love watching Tux supporting proprietary software.
Will Microsoft be next? |
|
| reply to TuxRaiderPen
said by TuxRaiderPen:Once again Linux runs off an OEM...
They are not going to open source or GPL their drivers, its time to drop this nonsense.. SUPPORT THE OEM's who support Linux!
Those of you with those horrid dual graphics systems are still SOL, thanks to this nonsense.
Linus Torvalds already told Nvidia to fuck off.
While I would like it if Nvidia would be sensible and open-source their crappy drivers (so the community could fix them), it probably won't happen soon. If you need 3D support, install their binary driver (and watch it break some shit like it does on my Ubuntu 12.04 box). If you don't need 3D support, then the open-source nouveau drivers work fine. 3D support is coming along there too, so perhaps in a number of years we wont need Nvidia's official drivers at all.
If you don't like Nvidia, go with ATI/AMD as they have open-sourced their drivers.
--
Getting people to stop using windows is more or less the same as trying to get people to stop smoking tobacco products. They dont want to change; they are happy with slowly dying inside. -- munky99999 |
|
| reply to Steve
said by Steve:
I love watching Tux supporting proprietary software.
This is for OEM drivers, and I and 99.9999999% of the rest of the Linux users could care less if its open source, closed source or any thing else.
We just want our hardware to work. nVidia is willing to do so, so support it!
For all the goodness of open source has gotten intel and crapti? inferior drivers which cause problems.
This is plain and simply linunx illumanti trying to force a change in something that nVidia has told them, ITS NOT HAPPENING.
Lets resolve this and move on. Support the OEM's who support Linux or keep telling them to F off and see where Linux is in a few years. Linux will not make greater inroads into the desktop till this nonsense is dropped, completely, 100%.
The whole mixed dual graphics is a stupid kludge in my opinion and just totally useless what ever engineer devised this should be sent to some x-Soviet gulag for a reconditioning...
I am fortunate in that I don't have any of this idiotic hardware and wouldn't purchase it to start.
said by Steve:
Will Microsoft be next?
No!
--
1311393600 - Back to Black.....Black....Black.... |
|
 timcuthBraves FanPremium
join:2000-09-18
Pelham, AL
·AT&T Southeast
| said by TuxRaiderPen:
This is for OEM drivers, and I and 99.9999999% of the rest of the Linux users could care less if its open source, closed source or any thing else.
We just want our hardware to work. nVidia is willing to do so, so support it!
I don't believe that is true. If you just want everything to work, get a Mac.
Tim
--
"Life is like this long line, except at the end there ain't no merry-go-round." - Arthur on The King of Queens
~ Project Hope ~ |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to TuxRaiderPen
said by TuxRaiderPen:We just want our hardware to work. nVidia is willing to do so, so support it!
....
This is plain and simply linunx illumanti trying to force a change in something that nVidia has told them, ITS NOT HAPPENING.
Sounds one-sided to me. It's nVidia's drivers. They are the only ones who can make their software work. I don't see nVidia cooperating in this; just making demands.
I don't see Windows changing Windows for nVidia's sake (Microsoft publishes a hardware compatibility guide). |
|
| said by howardfine:
Sounds one-sided to me. It's nVidia's drivers. They are the only ones who can make their software work. I don't see nVidia cooperating in this; just making demands.
Who's making a demand of whom? ? ? ?? ? ??
nVidia is making a request.
LK is DEMANDING they open source. nVidia has stated, Not happening. This tactic is tired, its old, and its a holdback, a HUGE HOLD BACK to Linux adoption on a wider scale.
Jane User, doesn't care if the software is open source. Thats maybe at best 2-3%. Open source has nothing, Zero, ZILCH, NADDA to do with my use of Linux.
What does?
F R E E.
Thats right free software v. $300/per machine for productivity software, v. $100-300/machine for upgrdes of OS....
The majority of desktop users corporate or personal don't care if the source code is avaialble. Program runs and works to do their task, period. Can they file a problem report and does the author/developer/maintiner(s) correct said issue? Theres the two metrics that matter. Nothing else. A small minority of corporate users might have the staff to handle fixing a problem or adding a feature. I may have the COBOL source to my CAD progam, does not mean I am going to go in and fix an issue or add features. First I don't have the time with other projects going. Second, thats what the $12K/month I pay in support is for. Thats right $12K/per month.
This if its not open source its not useful metric is out of date and touch, and a HUGE HOLDBACK to LINUX ADOPTION coporate or personal.
But then again maybe thats the whole point... too many here and elsewhere don't want to push Linux to wider adoption. I want ms off the desktop and out of OS business, period.I want Linux on servers, desktops, laptops and any where else it can go, which is pretty much anywhere.
The ONLY people making DEMANDS is the LK developers who are holding users hostage with this unrealstic DEMAND. nVidia made a request...
The majority, and mostly silent majority of users do not care about open source. Only that their hardware works, their programs run etc.. Thats it. The sooner this is accepted in the Linux illumanti circle the better.
--
1311393600 - Back to Black.....Black....Black.... |
|
