Go Back   nV News Forums > Linux Support Forums > NVIDIA Linux

Newegg Daily Deals

View Poll Results: Should Nvidia Put their source under the GPL?
Yes 90 68.70%
No 21 16.03%
Well, at least explain why they haven't. 20 15.27%
Voters: 131. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-10-03, 12:37 PM   #13
SnapIT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 154
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by LordMorgul
1. If the openGL standard was all that is required for writing the driver, one would not need nVidia's code in the first place, he'd just write the driver. So yes, openGL is open, but what makes it useful for the hardware may not be. Maybe.. we don't know.

2. From a software engineering point of view, yeah I'd rather have ONE guy than a million. But, perhaps I'd prefer 4 over 1.
1. the interface between the Open GL and the HW is still required, i am sorry that i was not clear about that, what makes Open GL useful is that it is a set of standards, maybe you don't know that, but i do, and that set of standards is extremely useful for programming for hardware, without it, every manufacturer would have their own standard... have fun makeing GLIDE (GLIDE was a minimal implementation of OGL that only worked on 3Dfx cards, however, other cards could have used it if the manufacturerrs knew how to program for it, if it had been OPEN)work with a Matrox card, that was one companies standard, it worked only with that companies cards, let's pray that we never have to experience that again...

2. What a silly argument, so you are telling me that a workforce of one million is less productive than the workforce of one? Ehhh... no...

From an OSS point of view, all of these thoughts are put together by the admin, the admin will scrutinize everything and use many things from many people... You have no clue how OSS works, do you?

In short... you are wrong... again...

[edit] my spelling sucks bad and i type too fast...
SnapIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-03, 12:39 PM   #14
SnapIT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 154
Default

I forgot to say that i consider DX MS version of GLIDE...

And it sucks just as much as the original...
SnapIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-03, 04:14 PM   #15
SnapIT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 154
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by TheOneKEA
If they came out and said that their drivers contained code licensed from another company that doesn't do GPL, then I'd understand. I wouldn't be happy, but I would understand.

Look at Cisco/Linksys, and their Linux-based WRT54G device - they were willing to GPL their code, but because they subcontracted it to another company, they were hung over a barrel when the other company refused to GPL the code for them. I think they were finally able to solve things; I don't know much about it.

For all we know, NVIDIA might release their Linux driver source under the GPL in five minutes if they could - perhaps they won't because they can't.
Actually the WRT54G code and the Nvidia code are two quite different things, Neither Cisco nor Linksys CAN release the code, Nvidia can but won't...

It has NOTHING to do with 3rd party code, Nvidia just don't want to...

Regarding the Cisco/Nvidia stuff, i believe you can find oper soource drivers for it at the end of february (or so we hope)...
SnapIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-03, 08:53 PM   #16
LordMorgul
Electrical Engineer
 
LordMorgul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Posts: 872
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by SnapIT

From an OSS point of view, all of these thoughts are put together by the admin, the admin will scrutinize everything and use many things from many people... You have no clue how OSS works, do you?

In short... you are wrong... again...

[edit] my spelling sucks bad and i type too fast...
No I just prefer not to use excess to try and claim increase in effectiveness. You know as well as I that one million actively working open source hardware gurus would be very ineffective working on one driver implementation. The project administration would not be able to utilize properly the ideas being produced, and work would be duplicated. You also know that the most complicated of OSS success stories, the kernel itself, does not have anywhere near a million actively working, competent, coders or engineers. Just because millions of people have had a chance to look at the code, or change a line or two, does not make them effective, or active developers on the project.

This isn't in any way tearing down the open source model's greatness, it is only a realistic view.
__________________
"..the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." (Edmond Burke)
nVIDIA video driver RPMs for Fedora :: see yum repo at livna.org.
LordMorgul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-03, 01:22 PM   #17
meldroc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Posts: 19
Default

Can't NVidia yank the licensed/secret stuff out of the drivers, and release them as is? They don't have to be complete. They don't even have to work. Just release what code isn't encumbered by secrets/licensing, then provide enough hardware-level programming information so developers in the OSS community can complete them.

It would be like when Netscape open-sourced Mozilla. The code base they started out with had to have a whole bunch of stuff yanked out, because of licensing from third parties & such. The code left afterwards wouldn't even compile. But it was a start that evolved into the Mozilla browsers we know today.
meldroc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-03, 03:22 PM   #18
Thunderbird
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Netherlands, Europe
Posts: 2,105
Default

It is not really source code that isn't nvidia's but it is lots of technology in the chips. Just giving out the code is not possible as 90% of the driver code is crossplatform, so the windows drivers would become open too. Further it is not easy to write drivers even with documentation. Look at the quality and performance of the dri drivers. There also isn't just documentation about every nvidia chip works a little different in some way.
Thunderbird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-03, 03:23 PM   #19
Soul-Crusher
Leadtek 6800GT
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Posts: 195
Send a message via ICQ to Soul-Crusher Send a message via AIM to Soul-Crusher Send a message via Yahoo to Soul-Crusher
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by meldroc
Can't NVidia yank the licensed/secret stuff out of the drivers, and release them as is? They don't have to be complete. They don't even have to work. Just release what code isn't encumbered by secrets/licensing, then provide enough hardware-level programming information so developers in the OSS community can complete them.

It would be like when Netscape open-sourced Mozilla. The code base they started out with had to have a whole bunch of stuff yanked out, because of licensing from third parties & such. The code left afterwards wouldn't even compile. But it was a start that evolved into the Mozilla browsers we know today.
That's the best idea I've ever heard out of ANY of these discussions. Good insight!
__________________
"Floating in a dream-like state, I am the emporer of a parallel universe." --Arch Enemy
My xorg.conf file
Soul-Crusher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-03, 04:54 PM   #20
TheOneKEA
Fifteen-K Saiyan Bastard
 
TheOneKEA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Somewhere in England, waiting for ROTK and drooling over the A64 3000+
Posts: 417
Send a message via ICQ to TheOneKEA Send a message via AIM to TheOneKEA Send a message via Yahoo to TheOneKEA
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by meldroc
Can't NVidia yank the licensed/secret stuff out of the drivers, and release them as is? They don't have to be complete. They don't even have to work. Just release what code isn't encumbered by secrets/licensing, then provide enough hardware-level programming information so developers in the OSS community can complete them.

It would be like when Netscape open-sourced Mozilla. The code base they started out with had to have a whole bunch of stuff yanked out, because of licensing from third parties & such. The code left afterwards wouldn't even compile. But it was a start that evolved into the Mozilla browsers we know today.
That IS a good idea! Just give us the unencumbered code and some hardware information and the nv driver would take off from there!
__________________
/me \/\/@|\|t5 $$$$$ F0r @|\| u65r 3|33t G@/\/\1|\|G r1G

SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/
Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Mozilla Firefox 0.8

Registered Linux User #289618
TheOneKEA is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-03, 10:53 PM   #21
Toril
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Syracuse, NY
Posts: 14
Default My own view

Ok, first off, I'm new here, hi everyone. I'm anxiously awaiting the new drivers for 2.6.0 ... Anyhow, I must say I voted "Yes" but I believe the 3rd option shouldn't be there. If anyone has a subscription to Linux Journal magazine, Andy was named by name in this article. Under the section "NVidia: Proprietary but responsive" they mention how half the driver is their IP. Now trust me, I'm a huge OSS/GPL zealot if there ever was one, but I can understand where they're coming from. It really puts them in a precarious position. This expalins why they can't/won't release it as OSS...

I just feel as if we're in a rut, especially now with the recent release of 2.6.0, the question isn't "should they release the code under the GPL or as OSS" but "how responsive are they?". One of the features/benefits of OSS/GPL'd software is what most of us geek-types want, instant gratification... even now a GPL driver would have at least beta drivers for testing...

My question is ... can we get an update of when (how quickly) a new driver (for 2.6.0 or otherwise) will be released? I would tend to think Nvidia would be delighted at the zeal in which their users want (demand?!?!) this stuff ...

I like Linux and I like Nvidia... You can have my gf3 ti200 when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
__________________
Athlon XP 2400+ / ECS K7S5A & Honeyx Bios / Nvidia GeForce3 Ti500 / 768 meg RAM / 220 gigs HD / Dual Boot XP Pro & modified Slackware Linux 10 with 2.6.xx kernel
Toril is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-03, 03:03 AM   #22
SnapIT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 154
Default

Umm... sorry, wrong thread
SnapIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-03, 03:18 AM   #23
SnapIT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 154
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by LordMorgul
No I just prefer not to use excess to try and claim increase in effectiveness. You know as well as I that one million actively working open source hardware gurus would be very ineffective working on one driver implementation. The project administration would not be able to utilize properly the ideas being produced, and work would be duplicated. You also know that the most complicated of OSS success stories, the kernel itself, does not have anywhere near a million actively working, competent, coders or engineers. Just because millions of people have had a chance to look at the code, or change a line or two, does not make them effective, or active developers on the project.

This isn't in any way tearing down the open source model's greatness, it is only a realistic view.
I get your point...

However, if you were to list ALL of the contributors to kernel, including several "fly by" patches used by other developers you would get millions... ALL of them are contributors, just because their work is implemented in some cases in a wider sense and in some cases it gives ideas, does not mean that they are not contributors, all of them are, and i thank them for their contribution...

I dunno how many times i have seen patches with the right idea but wrong implementation and been able to use the idea, just because the code wasn't used doesn't mean that the idea was wasted, if i use an idea of yours, you will recieve a mail thanking you for it...

So, you probably know by now what i think of your "realistic view" (obviously the model works, no matter how strange it seems to you), usable code is 99% ideas and 1% code...

Again, you are discussing a working model you do not understand... Not that i am tearing down on you for that though, it's hard to understand if you are not involved in it...

It feels kinda unneccessary to discuss this though, as it is Open model...

This is the way it works, get with a program and make yourself useful, in any way you can, bug reports SHOULD always be sent, contribute and you will find that your problems are pretty swiftly solved...

THAT is the nice part of having millions of developers working towards the same goal...

Anyways, merry christmas to everyone, i am going away for a while now...

SYL... :-)
SnapIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-03, 03:33 AM   #24
SnapIT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 154
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird
It is not really source code that isn't nvidia's but it is lots of technology in the chips. Just giving out the code is not possible as 90% of the driver code is crossplatform, so the windows drivers would become open too. Further it is not easy to write drivers even with documentation. Look at the quality and performance of the dri drivers. There also isn't just documentation about every nvidia chip works a little different in some way.
I assume you have never even TRIED the DRI drivers for ATI, they are pretty good if i do say so myself (latest version outperforms ATI's own drivers, might have something to do with the flow of the code between several interface prgrammers)...

So i am going to assume that you have no idea what you are talking about...

Regarding the rest of your post... "just giving out the code is not possible as 90% of the driver is crossplatform"... ehhh... WTF does that have to do with anything? "the windows drivers would become open too" Yeah, so? Do you think that just because the drivers are for windows they CANNOT be OSS? Do you have ANY idea of how many programs there are that are cross platform and open? Mozilla anyone?

Documentation about the chips? LOL, you think the hw developers just throw a few transistors together? Believe me, it is WELL documented, hw developers ALWAYS document everything in a way that even us in the OSS community are jealous of... IF you were to read all of it you would not return for many years... There is NO lack of documentation of HOW the chips works, right down to low-level information...

Buy yourself a clue and do not return with useless misinformed posts like that one, who knows, maybe someone reads it and actually believes that crap you spew...

Last edited by SnapIT; 12-20-03 at 03:45 AM.
SnapIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
nvidia driver quality decrease? legluondunet NVIDIA Linux 17 06-26-12 11:03 AM
NVIDIA Driver Installation flores.facundo NVIDIA Linux 2 06-24-12 09:37 AM
Need Help Installing NVIDIA Tesla M2070Q in Linux RHEL5 Ferianto85 NVIDIA Linux 0 05-18-12 09:35 PM
Getting the proprietary nvidia driver to run with Debian 3.0 r0 (woody) Katchina404 NVIDIA Linux 9 01-12-03 09:49 AM
nvidia + 2.4.19 gentoo = messed up ulukay NVIDIA Linux 18 11-02-02 12:58 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.