AYYYYYY Shout out to nvidia for this.
nvidia, fuck you no more!
Nvidia releases open-source GPU kernel modules
111–120 of 415 posts
Re: Nvidia releases open-source GPU kernel modules
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because to make a driver work with Linux you have to add Linux-specific code that typically uses Linux's source code, and that combination of the driver and Linux-specific code could be considered a "derivative". Note that the word "derivative" is used here as defined by the license, not in its plain English meaning.
You quickly get into something similar the ship of theseus (or Trigger's broom) argument. You write some code that must link to a GPL library to functon; that code is now GPL because it's a derivative work of the library. You rewrite that library under an MIT license, so now your code can link to that and run. Is your original code still a derivative work?
I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the GPL requires you to make source available upon request to users of your software.
So I guess if someone asks you for the source code, you can require them to prove that they actually have a copy of the GPL version, and not the new one.
Re: Nvidia releases open-source GPU kernel modules
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because to make a driver work with Linux you have to add Linux-specific code that typically uses Linux's source code, and that combination of the driver and Linux-specific code could be considered a "derivative". Note that the word "derivative" is used here as defined by the license, not in its plain English meaning.
You quickly get into something similar the ship of theseus (or Trigger's broom) argument. You write some code that must link to a GPL library to functon; that code is now GPL because it's a derivative work of the library. You rewrite that library under an MIT license, so now your code can link to that and run. Is your original code still a derivative work?
The license is abundantly clear about this and answers all your questions.
It matters who is doing the rewriting and how they got the code in the first place.
Re: Nvidia releases open-source GPU kernel modules
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
You quickly get into something similar the ship of theseus (or Trigger's broom) argument. You write some code that must link to a GPL library to functon; that code is now GPL because it's a derivative work of the library. You rewrite that library under an MIT license, so now your code can link to that and run. Is your original code still a derivative work?
Your original code is never a derivative work. You retain copyright to the code you wrote yourself, even if it's combined with GPL later. GPL even contains this interesting clause: > You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. So to answer your question: no, unless you've copied bits of GPL library into your code (or similar that would be judged as a copyright violation). There's also a…
> Your original code is never a derivative work[...]
> > You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it.
> So to answer your question: no, unless you've copied bits of GPL library into your code (or similar that would be judged as a copyright violation).
Actually that clears a lot up for me, and I'd have considered myself reasonably knowledgeable when it comes to copyright in general; I think I had a few conflicting ideas about what it means to be an original work. Thank you.
Re: Nvidia releases open-source GPU kernel modules
#115With the kernel driver open source + redistributeble firmware I guess the graphics APIs can be provided by mesa.
Nouveau has very close to 100% openGL and ES support. It has a deficit of out of specs extensions support though. Also no opensource nvidia vulkan implementation?? https://mesamatrix.net/
I guess nobody bothered to add vulkan support due to almost unusable performance without reclocking. Hopefully some work will get started with this news!
Re: Nvidia releases open-source GPU kernel modules
#116> In this open-source release, support for GeForce and Workstation GPUs is alpha quality. GeForce and Workstation users can use this driver on Turing and NVIDIA Ampere architecture GPUs to run Linux desktops and use features such as multiple displays, G-SYNC, and NVIDIA RTX ray tracing in Vulkan and NVIDIA OptiX. Users can opt in using the kernel module parameter NVreg_EnableUnsupportedGpus as highlighted in the docu…
The reason for this is because NVIDIA's Turing and above GPUs use a new microcontroller called the GSP, which is RISC-V based. From my understanding, NVIDIA has offloaded their proprietary IP from the closed-source driver to the GSP firmware (and not the older microcontroller present on Pascal and lower). This is why `gsp.bin` exists in `linux-firmware` now, and the FOSS driver targets the GSP (because now the proprietary stuff isn't in the kernel driver but rather a RISC-V ELF binary that runs on the GPU), not the older controller.
Re: Nvidia releases open-source GPU kernel modules
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure about the details, but to write a linux kernel module you must include some .h files under the GPL license. You really have to include it because linux ABI is intentionally not stable exactly to prevent proprietary abuse. So, AFAIK, every functional linux kernel driver must be released under the GPL.
APIs and ABIs should be open. GPL taking a different stance here is not helping anyone.
The point is: if you want to include a GPL licensed header, your code must comply with its license. Your opinion on the GPL is an entirely different matter.
Re: Nvidia releases open-source GPU kernel modules
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
It means Nouveau will finally can get good I think.
Nope, nouveau is still hosed because they've been blocked ny Nvidia's secrutful FALCON's which have the reclocking and power management API's locked away behind proprietary firmware blobs.
This new driver targets GPUs with FALCON, and nouveau will be able to control it, as FALCON is GSP (https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NVIDIA-R...).
Re: Nvidia releases open-source GPU kernel modules
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I remember correctly, the open source ATI drivers were always a bit buggy and it wasn't that easy getting them installed either. The tradeoff was always Nvidia: proprietary but works well, ATI: open but buggy.
> the open source ATI drivers were always a bit buggy and it wasn't that easy getting them installed either. No. Once mainlined, you had to do absolutely nothing to get the hardware working.
The part about them being buggy is definitely true.
Up until somewhere around 2016-2017 the ATI/AMD drivers were really bad.
I had an "HD 7850" GPU on Linux around that time and it was barely usable. The performance was less than half of what you got on Windows, and the drivers would crash very often, sometimes several times a day if I was trying to play games like Team Fortress 2.
It was so bad that I decided to replace the HD 7850 with a new GTX 970 and decided to not buy anymore AMD GPUs for the indefinite future. The GTX 970 was stable and performed very well with the closed source drivers, and other than them being closed source I never had an issue with them. I always installed the closed drivers through the system package manager which handled all of the tricky stuff for me (Arch Linux maintains the nvidia driver as a system package and makes sure it runs on the current kernel before releasing it).
In modern times the situation has flipped though. I still haven't bought an AMD GPU since then but I am pretty sure my next one will be.
Re: Nvidia releases open-source GPU kernel modules
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
You quickly get into something similar the ship of theseus (or Trigger's broom) argument. You write some code that must link to a GPL library to functon; that code is now GPL because it's a derivative work of the library. You rewrite that library under an MIT license, so now your code can link to that and run. Is your original code still a derivative work?
The license is abundantly clear about this and answers all your questions. It matters who is doing the rewriting and how they got the code in the first place.
I think one of the matters that confused me about it was the CLISP question. IIRC, CLISP linked to readline, but was released under a non-GPL license.
RMS contacted them, and asked them to relicense. They suggested either reimplementing a stub readline-library, or rewriting their line editing code against another lib instead. RMS insisted that they would still be a GPL-derivative, resulting in the current license situation.
I may be misremembering the recount of this, as this was way before my time.