Open-Source Qualcomm GPU Driver Published

An anonymous reader writes "Not being content with the state of open source graphics drivers for Linux, a developer working for Texas Instruments has reverse-engineered his competitor's (Qualcomm) driver and written an open-source Snapdragon driver. With being tainted by legal documents at Texas Instruments, the developer, who is also involved with Linaro, had no other choice but to work on an open source graphics driver for his competitor in his free time. The open source Qualcomm Snapdragon/Adreno driver is called Freedreno."

Comments

a clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

fyi, this was done on my own time.. this is not sponsored/endorsed by TI.. please ready my blog post for my motivation:
http://bloggingthemonkey.blogspot.com/2012/04/fighting-back-against-binary-blobs.html

BR,
-R

Re:a clarification

[kurthr]

Since Slashdot previously reported that Qualcom has promised to "Kill all proprietary drivers for good", this seems like the right start :)
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/12/03/29/1650208/qualcomm-calls-to-kill-all-proprietary-drivers-for-good

Re:a clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

Alas, that was Qualcomm atheros. I suspect the main baseband and app processor group wouldn't be as enthusiastic about open sourcing their drivers. Which is unfortunate as their drivers are pretty bad compared to their competition in terms of ALU utilization and therefore, performance.

Re:a clarification

[unixisc]

I'm not an open source zealot, but I don't see anything unethical in what he did.

Anyone (w/ the expertise) could have taken the documentation on Qualcomm's snapdragon from their datasheets, and written a driver based on that to simulate its functionality. How is that cheating? It would only be cheating if he had somehow gotten hold of Qualcomm's original code and splashed it all over the internet. But what he did was something that anybody could have done - it ain't cheating if you figure out how on your own. Qualcomm's only case against him is if they have patents that he (accidentally) violated while writing those drivers. Otherwise, what he did was an independent piece of work, which he can release under any license.

Okay, he's written open source drivers for his competitor, but is TI's own driver open source, or would someone outside TI have to do the same thing to them?

Re:Raspberry Pi

[neokushan]

I don't think it's possible to get RMS's stamp of approval on anything. You still have to buy a Raspberry Pi from someone, which means you have to use a web browser, probably with cookies enabled and enter in all sorts of personal information - like a shipping address.

RMS wouldn't have it.

Re:Raspberry Pi

[gQuigs]

That's bull.

RMS wouldn't approve the Rasperry Pi because it needs the binary blob to boot. (I think regardless of this particular reverse engineering). Yes, RMS pushs for the most free computer he can get.

Here are what the FSF actually uses (they install coreboot themselves when needed, btw), and they do actually exist:
https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/systems

Re:correction:

[Anonymous Coward]

note: I did not break any NDA's.. or violate any licenses that I agreed to, etc. This is the reason that I cannot work on an open source driver for the IMG GPU in OMAP devices (which I'd love to do, but am prevented by NDA). Trust me, I'd love nothing more than to be working on an open source graphics driver for OMAP.. but if I did, *that* would be a story.

BR,
-R

Why don't you agree?

[dutchwhizzman]

Why don't you agree with it? First of all, he did nothing illegal. This is how binary software gets reversed. There is a copyright on the code, but not on the ideas inside of it (you can't patent an idea). There is no copyright on the hardware he's violating in any way. He merely copied it's function, not the actual code itself. Second of all, Qualcomm will not sell a single piece of hardware less than what they were already selling. If anything, they'll be selling more because there's a better driver for it now. Third of all, Qualcomm will now have an opportunity to save money because they only have to help support the freeware driver and they can bin their own.

The only spicy thing about this whole deal is that he is not just a guy that does this for a hobby, but he does the exact same thing for a Qualcomm competitor when he's on the clock. Maybe his employer will think he benefited a competitor in his free time, but firing him for it will mean that they are admitting that open source drivers are better and they will admit to their own failure by not providing their own. They are in a catch 22 on this. Fire him and admit they are doing business wrong, which the shareholders and investors won't like, or just leave him be and decide on their own if they want to put code for their GPU drivers in open source. I think he's safe, or will at least have a good career at some other company that is willing to hire him for his skills.