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 12-20-03, 03:42 AM   #25
SnapIT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 154
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.
Yup, that is the general idea... hopefully Nvidia will understand that a DRI implementation could be useful for them too...

There is one problem though, if they want one closed and one open branch, there could be problems deciding wich code is which and if their implementations are actually their own or taken from the open development, the license for OSS requires that code used for OSS remain OSS, nvidia could very easily get into trouble with licenses...

A better solution would be to just release the current code base to the OSS and be done with it... The OSS community are quite capable of implementing the code released...

(I suggest everyone take a peek at the GNU license or the BSD one, very alike, but still very different, once you have you might understand why Nvidia are reluctant to release ANY code if it is not ALL code.)
SnapIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-03, 02:10 PM   #26
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 SnapIT
Yup, that is the general idea... hopefully Nvidia will understand that a DRI implementation could be useful for them too...

There is one problem though, if they want one closed and one open branch, there could be problems deciding wich code is which and if their implementations are actually their own or taken from the open development, the license for OSS requires that code used for OSS remain OSS, nvidia could very easily get into trouble with licenses...

A better solution would be to just release the current code base to the OSS and be done with it... The OSS community are quite capable of implementing the code released...

(I suggest everyone take a peek at the GNU license or the BSD one, very alike, but still very different, once you have you might understand why Nvidia are reluctant to release ANY code if it is not ALL code.)
All the world is not BSD or GPL. There's the QPL, the MPL, and a few other OSS-friendly licences that NVIDIA could use.

I agree with you on the idea that NVIDIA should release their code -- the problem now is trying to convince NVIDIA that releasing their code means several things:

1. Better Linux drivers
2. Increased sales of NVIDIA hardware
3. Better Linux drivers
4. Increased visibility in the OSS world
5. Better Linux drivers
6. Better Linux drivers
7. etc......

We already got their Ethernet MAC under control, and their SoundStorm chip is slowly coming under control in the ALSA drivers as well -- all that's needed now is proper video drivers and a box running the nForce/nForce2/nForce3 with an NVIDIA card <- teh pwnt.
__________________
/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 12-22-03, 05:33 PM   #27
ExileInParadise
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Pasadena, TX
Posts: 5
Default Open Source + Options

I would like to see NVidia at least support the nv driver from the XFree86 group.

First, the programming specs should be fully available, and *as much as possible* of the support for the cards should be open sourced.

Any of the parts that are currently not able to be open sourced due to licensing restrictions should remain a seperate install. People who want support for ALL of the features of their cards should be able to get it... but people (for example, those who run Fedora) should be able to keep their systems OSS pure rather than HAVING to run tainted kernels.

Currently the NV driver does not support dual monitor/TwinView, and NVidia's help could make that possible without violating any licensing... since TwinView is an NVidia feature, not something licensed.

Right now, the Fedora community is actively discoruaging the USE or PURCHASE of NVidia cards simply because the licensing of the NVidia Binary Driver is not compatible with the Fedora Community goals. ATI is helping the opensource community by opening their drivers (to some extent) and this is already reaping them rewards with hard core open-sourcers.

The model could work like this:
This much of the driver is open source and is given to/developed into the current NV driver for XFree86. The Open Source community *and* NVidia jointly develop AND support it.

An *optional* module that includes ONLY the non-openable parts of the current driver would be a seperate release for people who want those features. Installing it should PLAINLY state that NVidia ONLY will support the ENTIRE driver after installing the optional parts, using this forum, and that people installing the closed options should NOT request support from the open source community.

That should cover everyone's concerns in a way that is still workable... open source can get the specs it needs to more completely support NVidia and have a driver that can run without tainting the kernel due to licensing... and "power users" can get the features THEY want and get directed to the APPROPRIATE support area, rather than requesting support from an open source community for a closed source driver they can't see or work with.

The NV driver is a good start from the XFree folks, but it could really use NVidias help to more completely support their cards. If this doesn't happen... ATI will rule the Linux desktop market due to their openness and thats what everyone will be recommending/buying next year.

Linux wants to be free, in the GNU Free/Open Source sense of the word, and vendors who support that will get the market in the long term. NVidia's closed driver was a great start, and helped get them to number 1 in the Linux market, but ATI has positioned itself closer to the overall goals of Linux and I feel that will let them win out in the long run.
ExileInParadise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-04, 10:54 PM   #28
SnapIT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 154
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by TheOneKEA
All the world is not BSD or GPL. There's the QPL, the MPL, and a few other OSS-friendly licences that NVIDIA could use.

I agree with you on the idea that NVIDIA should release their code -- the problem now is trying to convince NVIDIA that releasing their code means several things:

1. Better Linux drivers
2. Increased sales of NVIDIA hardware
3. Better Linux drivers
4. Increased visibility in the OSS world
5. Better Linux drivers
6. Better Linux drivers
7. etc......

We already got their Ethernet MAC under control, and their SoundStorm chip is slowly coming under control in the ALSA drivers as well -- all that's needed now is proper video drivers and a box running the nForce/nForce2/nForce3 with an NVIDIA card <- teh pwnt.
I would like to see anything like the GPL or the OSI model, anything less than that would not fit into a truly open model...

Frankly, i have given up, that is why i pretty much have stopped posting here, you will find my posts on other forums instead... ATI have released their specs, they are working towards a better community... i will not support nvidia anymore...

The fully compatible AGP drivers will be released within a week, you will be free to download the rpm/deb/tgz or for *bsd bz2 by then...

Bye all, be well!

Patrick
SnapIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-05, 06:22 AM   #29
Paloseco
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2
Default Re: Poll: GPL nvidia Driver

I think that being GPL does not mean to leave drivers unsupported and say "Someone will continue development because it is GPL and community should do that". nVIDIA is the responsible for the good performance and integration of the drivers license-independant. I think also that to be GPL is the best way to improve effectiveness and facility, as it could be included with Xorg/kernel module and all distros of linux, having FULL acceleration by default without having to fight with packages, dependencies or something.

This could help also to easily improve 64 bits support for other operating systems like *NIX, is the way to go and to give a step ahead againt ATI.
Paloseco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-05, 07:30 AM   #30
Thunderbird
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Netherlands, Europe
Posts: 2,105
Default Re: Poll: GPL nvidia Driver

Please don't revive this old flamewar/discussion as it is useless. It is not likely that nvidia will release opensource drivers. Second there's enough information if you would look well to create an opensource nvidia driver and third nvidia maintains the nv driver for xfree86/xorg so that all operating systems can atleast enjoy 2d functionality.
Thunderbird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-05, 07:45 AM   #31
Paloseco
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2
Default Re: Poll: GPL nvidia Driver

i love the search engine. Lets the announcement be official.
Paloseco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-05, 08:20 AM   #32
mklemm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 27
Default Re: Poll: GPL nvidia Driver

Btw. is there a statement by NVIDIA why they didn't stick to the linux/XFree DRM architecture when designing their driver? ATI has close source drivers, too, but they seem to adhere to the DRM/AGPGART kernel mode layer...
mklemm is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 10-19-05, 12:17 PM   #33
Thunderbird
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Netherlands, Europe
Posts: 2,105
Default Re: Poll: GPL nvidia Driver

From the start nvidia's drivers have been crossplatform (for both different OSes and cpu architectures). More than 90% of the code (95% if I'm right) is shared between all operating systems. The main difference is in the OS-specific glue like the X-specific stuff. More code could be shared if they used their own stuff I think. Second there are more unix operating systems which nvidia supports (I think) which most people don't know about. The first nvidia drivers contained defines for several other Unixes in the opensource glue. In the beginning DRI was limited to Linux which is another reason not to use DRI.
Thunderbird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-05, 06:25 AM   #34
tonicwasser
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 10
Default Re: Poll: GPL nvidia Driver

Just please provide sufficient documentation for improving the OpenSource nForce drivers so we nVidia owners can have:
- First class support for our nForce SATA drives (NCQ, hotplug etc.)
- First class support for our nForce gigabit ethernet.
- First class support for our nForce audio devices.

Currently we are second class citizens with our first class hardware
Closed source drivers for basic motherboard features is especially painful. I am sure the OpenSource community would do all the effort involved - if only documentation was available.

-- Best wishes for a better nVidia/Linux future!
tonicwasser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-05, 10:02 AM   #35
Thunderbird
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Netherlands, Europe
Posts: 2,105
Default Re: Poll: GPL nvidia Driver

The only area in which not enough information is available is in case of soundstorm which is used on nforce1/2 boards. The audio stuff on nforce3/4 boards is generic stuff for which enough info is there and second for network people reverse engineered nvnet (called forcedeth), support for gigabit could be added to it. Not sure how hard it is though. The reason for not releasing specs on some of the stuff is again IP related. Nvidia doesn't own the rights to the stuff they licensed.
Thunderbird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-05, 06:16 PM   #36
Lithorus
Registered User
 
Lithorus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 783
Default Re: Poll: GPL nvidia Driver

IMO, it's a pretty useless question wether or not they should GPL the drivers. It's just not gonna happen for CURRENT products. What I could rather forsee in the future is that when developing new products they will consider not using IP related stuff. It would probably be near impossible for a 100% IP free product, but they could atleast limit it to a minimum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonicwasser
Currently we are second class citizens with our first class hardware
Closed source drivers for basic motherboard features is especially painful. I am sure the OpenSource community would do all the effort involved - if only documentation was available.
Well, it sorta works in Windows... I'm not saying that closed drivers is a good thing for Linux, but rather that closed drivers is good for a closed OS. Linux is Open-Source and should therefor have Open-Source drivers. But closed-source drivers for Linux doesn't make us "second-rate", but rather "not optimal".
Lithorus 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 01:43 PM.


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