Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Alan Cox to NVIDIA: You Can't Use DMA-BUF

Posted by Unknown on from the gauntlet-has-been-thrown dept.

DMA-BUF is a recent kernel feature that allows multiple GPUs to quickly copy data into each others' framebuffers. A use case would be the NVIDIA Optimus that pairs a fast GPU with an Intel integrated GPU, where the NVIDIA GPU writes into the Intel framebuffer when it is active. But, NVIDIA won't be able to use this infrastructure because it's GPL. Alan Cox replied on LKML to a request from one of their engineers to mark the API non-GPL: "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." The rest of the thread is worth a read (a guy from RedHat agrees that this code is GPL and cannot become non-GPL without relicensing from a major subset of graphics system contributors). This has a ripple effect: it means that all of the ARM SoC GPU drivers can't use it either, and it may prevent any proprietary drivers for the proposed DRI version 3.

3 of 946 comments (clear)

  1. Purity vs Relevance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This is why even RMS allowed a linking exception for GCC. The point here is that the GPL is supposed to encourage sharing, not make GPL environments irrelevant. They may be pure, but so is HURD. And HURD has no users. So what's the point. Interesting that BSD/Apache/MIT is all the rage these days.

  2. Thanks to AC and others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    for making it harder on companies that already support Linux for trying to get to feature parity with other platforms because of your stupid religion license. I'm sure many other companies are now re-examining their stand on future linux products and figuring out a way to move them either to the cloud or to the dust bin and just not bother with a pack of lunatics. Thanks guys it was mighty white of you to fuck with what we end users wanted because it hurt your feelings.

  3. Re:What Cox is saying... by Shinobi · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I have yet to see a GPL program that is actually innovative, rather than the usual GPL zealot approach of Plagiarism-then-shouting-innovation.

    There's been more actual innovation and trying totally new concepts from the *BSD camp, while the GPL/Linux camp have been busy implementing stuff from other OS's or even concepts that were old already in the 80's(Fair Scheduling etc) yet claiming innovation.

    Hell, many of the GPL implementations of various things have been substandard compared to the proprietary ones, such as XFS for example, and IBM's JFS.