7 ms·

Do you refuse to use NVidia cards for the same reason?

by rodgerd 3y ago

dontupvoteme 3y ago
No choice on that front.
- NavinF 3y ago
  New drivers are MIT/GPL2 dual-licensed: https://github.com/NVIDIA/open-gpu-kernel-modules https://github.com/NVIDIA/open-gpu-kernel-modules
  - mrweasel 3y ago
    Doesn't that still require the closed source user space driver to function? I'd love to be wrong on that one.
    - vetinari 3y ago
      In the short-term yes, in the long term the user space driver would also get open (or replaced with nouveau, since it will be on equal footing with the closed one, when communicating with kernel; just like the open vs closed amd drivers). However, what will be left is a blob, that runs on the dedicated core on the GPU. The stuff that Nvidia doesn't want to open is moved there, and that's why the open kernel driver works only on Turing and newer.
      - mrweasel 3y ago
        > However, what will be left is a blob, that runs on the dedicated core on the GPU But that basically firmware, right? So not all that different from the firmware loaded by a NIC?
        vetinari 3y ago
        Yes, exactly the same thing.
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
Honestly the nvidia thing was always annoying because it seems like the linux devs are more aggressive about licensing with an actual full-on Open Source project than the very much closed-source nvidia drivers. They even both use the same approach of having a GPL wrapper to talk to the non-GPL code AFAIK:\
mrweasel 3y ago
That might be a bad example. I'd trust ZFS and the CDDL before NVIDIA any day. At least the CDDL is designed with the intention of being open attemps to work with other licenses. NVIDIA seems hellbent on working around the GPL.
- teddyh 3y ago
  The original intention of the license doesn’t really matter when its current copyright holder is Oracle.
  - jakobson14 3y ago
    Oracle is *a* copyright holder, but they have no control over the direction of the OpenZFS fork.
    - teddyh 3y ago
      I’m not concerned about the direction of development, I’m concerned about Oracle holding the (or at least a significant part of) copyright to some software which is used as a Linux module, but which is licensed under a license which is (arguably) incompatible with the GPL. If Oracle wanted to, they could easily release their copyright under a dual license or something else to clear up the licensing issue. They have not, and have chosen to retain the ability to sue every Linux user using ZFS. This concerns me.
      - NavinF 3y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37396155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37396155
        teddyh 3y ago
        It doesn’t really matter on whose “side” the conflict lies; the license is arguably GPL-incompatible, and Linux is not going to change its license. But Oracle could, if they wanted to. And they evidently don’t want to, which is concerning.

Do you refuse to use NVidia cards for the same reason?

dontupvoteme 3y ago

No choice on that front.

NavinF 3y ago
New drivers are MIT/GPL2 dual-licensed: https://github.com/NVIDIA/open-gpu-kernel-modules https://github.com/NVIDIA/open-gpu-kernel-modules
- mrweasel 3y ago
  Doesn't that still require the closed source user space driver to function? I'd love to be wrong on that one.
  - vetinari 3y ago
    In the short-term yes, in the long term the user space driver would also get open (or replaced with nouveau, since it will be on equal footing with the closed one, when communicating with kernel; just like the open vs closed amd drivers). However, what will be left is a blob, that runs on the dedicated core on the GPU. The stuff that Nvidia doesn't want to open is moved there, and that's why the open kernel driver works only on Turing and newer.
    - mrweasel 3y ago
      > However, what will be left is a blob, that runs on the dedicated core on the GPU But that basically firmware, right? So not all that different from the firmware loaded by a NIC?
      - vetinari 3y ago
        Yes, exactly the same thing.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago

Honestly the nvidia thing was always annoying because it seems like the linux devs are more aggressive about licensing with an actual full-on Open Source project than the very much closed-source nvidia drivers. They even both use the same approach of having a GPL wrapper to talk to the non-GPL code AFAIK:\

mrweasel 3y ago

That might be a bad example. I'd trust ZFS and the CDDL before NVIDIA any day. At least the CDDL is designed with the intention of being open attemps to work with other licenses. NVIDIA seems hellbent on working around the GPL.

teddyh 3y ago
The original intention of the license doesn’t really matter when its current copyright holder is Oracle.
- jakobson14 3y ago
  Oracle is *a* copyright holder, but they have no control over the direction of the OpenZFS fork.
  - teddyh 3y ago
    I’m not concerned about the direction of development, I’m concerned about Oracle holding the (or at least a significant part of) copyright to some software which is used as a Linux module, but which is licensed under a license which is (arguably) incompatible with the GPL. If Oracle wanted to, they could easily release their copyright under a dual license or something else to clear up the licensing issue. They have not, and have chosen to retain the ability to sue every Linux user using ZFS. This concerns me.
    - NavinF 3y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37396155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37396155
      - teddyh 3y ago
        It doesn’t really matter on whose “side” the conflict lies; the license is arguably GPL-incompatible, and Linux is not going to change its license. But Oracle could, if they wanted to. And they evidently don’t want to, which is concerning.