3 ms·

the reason for the change to GPL in 5.9: https://lwn.net/Articles/827596/ https://lwn.net/Articles/827596/ it's a little frustrating that things which used to

the reason for the change to GPL in 5.9: https://lwn.net/Articles/827596/ https://lwn.net/Articles/827596/ it's a little frustrating that things which used to be kosher, like nvidia and nvidia_uvm linking are all of a sudden not because they got caught up in this crossfire.

robbyt 6y ago
"crossfire" huh? It's not a war. It's an open source project with a clear API, and a company that doesn't keep up with the API.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- izacus 6y ago
  I wonder if you'd say the same if the team changing the API would be Googles and the teams constantly having to scramble to unbreak their code would be an opensource project.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Half the benefit of having open source drivers is so that the kernel team can update the drivers themselves when they change the API. I don't think there would be a lot of complaints from open source developers if Google were to change one of their APIs while submitting high quality patches to update all the open source projects that use it.
qalmakka 6y ago
Caught in the crossfire? NVIDIA has been skirting around the GPL for years with its Linux module, without ever contributing back. They've being hindering the adoption of Wayland for years due their refusal to implement GBM in their driver. I guess they kinda deserve the flak, especially since AMD and Intel have shown the world time and time again that you can have a fully open GPU driver merged with Linux without any negative downsides.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- izacus 6y ago
  So basically kernel team repeatedly breaking the driver is how they want to bludgeon nVidia into giving them all their code and forcing them into supporting their own APIs? Seems like petty behaviour to break users hardware just because you disagree with driver licensing.
  - dthul 6y ago
    They closed a loophole that allowed proprietary modules to access GPL only functionality.
  - baq 6y ago
    Yes, so they stop getting away with license shenanigans? The kernel is GPL, this surely isn’t hard to understand for Nvidia lawyers.
FullyFunctional 6y ago
And it was never kosher and NVIDIA knew exactly that what they were doing was really controversial and risky (I was there). Management at NVIDIA needs to have a forcing function to open the the drivers before anything changes. They depend on and profit from Linux (ML!) so they have no choice but to comply.
- pantalaimon 6y ago
  Nvidia will keep working though WSL2
  - FullyFunctional 6y ago
    Datacenters do not run WSL2
shmerl 6y ago
There should be more pressure on Nvidia to provide a proper upstream driver. Their blob is an abomination.
kmeisthax 6y ago
IMO proprietary modules have never been kosher. They rely on a particular legal interpretation of the GPL that assumes that... 1. "Programs" (as defined by the GPL) can be legally separate works and share the same address space (on a platform where this arrangement is highly unusual) 2. Separate GPL Programs hosted in the same address space can share linked symbols determined to not be "internal APIs" (in a world where the Supreme Court might run roughshod over this and just say all API implementation is copyright-infringing) 3. "Operating system kernel" and "GPU driver for that self-same kernel" can be considered, regardless of address space colocation, to be separate GPL Programs. This interpretation is highly unusual but holds primarily because Linus Torvalds and every other major kernel contributor endorsed it. Whether or not this constitutes promissory estoppel, implied license, or something else is up to Nvidia legal to decide; but it's highly likely that nobody with standing to challenge what would otherwise be an obvious GPL license violation is actually in a position to do so. Hence, Nvidia has access to a market they shouldn't.

robbyt 6y ago

"crossfire" huh? It's not a war. It's an open source project with a clear API, and a company that doesn't keep up with the API.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
izacus 6y ago
I wonder if you'd say the same if the team changing the API would be Googles and the teams constantly having to scramble to unbreak their code would be an opensource project.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Half the benefit of having open source drivers is so that the kernel team can update the drivers themselves when they change the API. I don't think there would be a lot of complaints from open source developers if Google were to change one of their APIs while submitting high quality patches to update all the open source projects that use it.

qalmakka 6y ago

Caught in the crossfire? NVIDIA has been skirting around the GPL for years with its Linux module, without ever contributing back. They've being hindering the adoption of Wayland for years due their refusal to implement GBM in their driver. I guess they kinda deserve the flak, especially since AMD and Intel have shown the world time and time again that you can have a fully open GPU driver merged with Linux without any negative downsides.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
izacus 6y ago
So basically kernel team repeatedly breaking the driver is how they want to bludgeon nVidia into giving them all their code and forcing them into supporting their own APIs? Seems like petty behaviour to break users hardware just because you disagree with driver licensing.
- dthul 6y ago
  They closed a loophole that allowed proprietary modules to access GPL only functionality.
- baq 6y ago
  Yes, so they stop getting away with license shenanigans? The kernel is GPL, this surely isn’t hard to understand for Nvidia lawyers.

FullyFunctional 6y ago

And it was never kosher and NVIDIA knew exactly that what they were doing was really controversial and risky (I was there). Management at NVIDIA needs to have a forcing function to open the the drivers before anything changes. They depend on and profit from Linux (ML!) so they have no choice but to comply.

pantalaimon 6y ago
Nvidia will keep working though WSL2
- FullyFunctional 6y ago
  Datacenters do not run WSL2

shmerl 6y ago

There should be more pressure on Nvidia to provide a proper upstream driver. Their blob is an abomination.

kmeisthax 6y ago

IMO proprietary modules have never been kosher. They rely on a particular legal interpretation of the GPL that assumes that... 1. "Programs" (as defined by the GPL) can be legally separate works and share the same address space (on a platform where this arrangement is highly unusual) 2. Separate GPL Programs hosted in the same address space can share linked symbols determined to not be "internal APIs" (in a world where the Supreme Court might run roughshod over this and just say all API implementation is copyright-infringing) 3. "Operating system kernel" and "GPU driver for that self-same kernel" can be considered, regardless of address space colocation, to be separate GPL Programs. This interpretation is highly unusual but holds primarily because Linus Torvalds and every other major kernel contributor endorsed it. Whether or not this constitutes promissory estoppel, implied license, or something else is up to Nvidia legal to decide; but it's highly likely that nobody with standing to challenge what would otherwise be an obvious GPL license violation is actually in a position to do so. Hence, Nvidia has access to a market they shouldn't.