Pandora 3d Chip Questions When Working?

[Svartalf]

I suppose this shows that a 3D driver definitely exists:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=24TXpqa9jG0


It does. The problem is, to get access to that driver right at the moment requires you signing away your firstborn, possibly your second, away on an NDA right at the moment.

 

[javaJake]

@javaJake ... so you quote someone else and respond to me LOL
Sorry about that.

Edit: Bolded parts for the speed-readers.

No it doesn't sound "familiar" to microsoft in the slightest. You seem to be indicating that this kind of concern on the part of the kernel developers is draconian in some way. Instead, it's a requirement to clarify that support/problems/etc. that arise from using it aren't the responsibility of the kernel developers. If you want to make a binary that no one can see the code for, it's your responsibility to fix the problems (even if they aren't really yours) since no one else can see where the issue lies.
There really is no confusion over this matter. If you look on the Ubuntu forums, the anger is directed 90% at NVidia or ATI for their problems. The real issue here, is the authors wanted to clarify what the people are and aren't allowed to do with their kernel, under the GPL.

No it doesn't sound "familiar" to microsoft in the slightest. You seem to be indicating that this kind of concern on the part of the kernel developers is draconian in some way.
Law is draconian, in a sense. (And rightfully so.) Copyrights and other licenses restricting how you can use software are all upheld by law.

From my point of view, I lose freedom because of the GPL. Oops! Trying to use a closed-source library with an open-source program? Can't do it! You aren't allowed to! It's illegal because of the GPL license. And you simply don't have a choice. If the kernel was licensed under something more open, then I could say I am truly free to use my computer with whatever combination of software I want. Unfortunately, they restrict what I can do. (And then people get tricked into thinking the GPL is all about freedom, when really it's a sandbox sort of freedom. That's where I drew the similarity to Microsoft.)

On the other hand, pro-GPL folks have some good points. Without the GPL, binary drivers would probably run rampant. More than they do now? Depends. It's hard to say what would've happened. Perhaps enough user feedback would push them to release some parts open-source and leave the critical bits closed? Perhaps the damage could be reversed, and you'd have both 100% freedom and near-to-open-source drivers? Or perhaps Ubuntu would've led the charge back into closed source hell yet again, and a new group of "core" Linux users would start the crusade for freedom yet again...

I've just been told a GPL driver is about to be released (before Christmas).
Excellent news! Almost as good as the bluetooth announcement.

 

[TaG]

I wonder if there is a link here:

I've just been told a GPL driver is about to be released (before Christmas).
Maemo 5 SDK release

Maemo 5 offers:
* OMAP3 support.
* Cellular data connectivity.
* High definition camera support.
* hardware-based graphics acceleration

 

[Tom`]

From my point of view, I lose freedom because of the GPL. Oops! Trying to use a closed-source library with an open-source program? Can't do it! You aren't allowed to! It's illegal because of the GPL license. And you simply don't have a choice. If the kernel was licensed under something more open, then I could say I am truly free to use my computer with whatever combination of software I want. Unfortunately, they restrict what I can do. (And then people get tricked into thinking the GPL is all about freedom, when really it's a sandbox sort of freedom. That's where I drew the similarity to Microsoft.)

Not at all. If the GPL allowed you to require closed-source libraries, you might be gaining "freedom," but it would rob everyone else of the freedom to change and redistribute your software, which is a far greater loss of freedom, and what the GPL was designed to protect against.

 

[mali]

I wonder if there is a link here:

I've just been told a GPL driver is about to be released (before Christmas).
Maemo 5 SDK release

Maemo 5 offers:
* OMAP3 support.
* Cellular data connectivity.
* High definition camera support.
* hardware-based graphics acceleration

That will raise some serious moaning in the ITT community. No support for OMAP2

 

[VRAndy]

If I would be a coder, I would say "Software optimizing is fun!" but I'm not a coder so I can't say this.
But you are right
Yes it is but unfortunately maintaining optimized code is a freaking nightmare.
And optimizing it in the first place is time consuming. (If I had infinite time, I'd do all sorts of fun and/or interesting things.)

I lose freedom because of the GPL. Oops!
Yes, GPL is designed to increase the freedom of the users at the expense of the freedom of the programmers.
There seems to be some sort of Law of Conservation of Freedom at work in the universe.

(You see similar give-take situations with the freedom of corporations verses the freedom of individual consumers.)

I've just been told a GPL driver is about to be released (before Christmas).
Yay!

 

[hch]

Yes, GPL is designed to increase the freedom of the users at the expense of the freedom of the programmers.

and what might be the difference if i may ask? creating a fence between money earning professionals and deprived consumers is the mindset of proprietary software companies.

do i really need to explain this here in the forums of an open source, community 'designed' device with a lot of 'homebrew' users?

 

[timofonic]

I believe he means a GPL (Open source) driver that relies on a binary blob. Ie, the kernel driver itself is open source, but the confidential/trade secret parts are closed source. The last bit doesn't matter however, as you only need the GPL source to keep the driver upto date with newer kernel releases.

Then of course you have the OGL libraries which interface to the kernel module.

The 2D driver has always been open-source.

I don't "believe". He said it's GPL, but I would like an official clarification about that to avoid any kind of confusion. Where's the PR and being more cautions when talking about that stuff in public?

 

[mali]

I don't "believe". He said it's GPL, but I would like an official clarification about that to avoid any kind of confusion. Where's the PR and being more cautions when talking about that stuff in public?

It has always been the general consensus, that the SGX driver will consist of an open part and a binary blob AFAIK The only open question was, when it would be released.

 

[TaG]

I believe he means a GPL (Open source) driver that relies on a binary blob. Ie, the kernel driver itself is open source, but the confidential/trade secret parts are closed source. The last bit doesn't matter however, as you only need the GPL source to keep the driver upto date with newer kernel releases.

Then of course you have the OGL libraries which interface to the kernel module.

The 2D driver has always been open-source.
I don't "believe". He said it's GPL, but I would like an official clarification about that to avoid any kind of confusion. Where's the PR and being more cautions when talking about that stuff in public? Can't win. People keep clamouring for stuff from the devs, whn they make comments people think they shouldn't. Anyway, as I said above, if maemo is going to be 100% open source supporting the OMAP3 and hardware acceleration they too are going to need drivers that are GPL or some such.

 

[mali]

I don't think Maemo will have a fully open driver, either. They will have the same binary blob. This SDK is for platform developers and it still uses Maemo 4 GUI without the need for OpenGL ES.

 

[TaG]

I don't think Maemo will have a fully open driver, either. They will have the same binary blob.
Yes, that is what I meant but did not convey. (Please forgive my terrible use of the English lanuage )

 

[mali]

 

[Chip]

Obviously it's impossible to make any statements when half of the people here go out of their way to deliberately misinterpret things. The SGX driver will be GPL compliant. It will be, as it always has been, a binary blob driver with an open source shim that allows it to function without breaking Linux's license.

 

[cb88]

chip is correct... also there still isn't anything stopping you from loading closed source binary kernel modules since the kernel has no concept of whether or not a driver has source available unless the driver tells the kernel that it is so

EXCEPT that it would be illegal to distribute them as they basically become part of the kernel when loaded and as such come under the GPL meaning the likes of NVIDIA would be forced to open source thier code obviously they aren't willing to do that

if you load a closed source module and it identifies itself as such ... then you will get a kernel tainted message

al least that is how i understand it... I don't see any way to implement a way to detect closed source modules other than by the module identifying itself but perhaps I am wrong

 

[Exophase]

Yes, GPL is designed to increase the freedom of the users at the expense of the freedom of the programmers.

and what might be the difference if i may ask? creating a fence between money earning professionals and deprived consumers is the mindset of proprietary software companies.

do i really need to explain this here in the forums of an open source, community 'designed' device with a lot of 'homebrew' users?


Maybe. Just because you can freely install whatever binaries you want on your machines doesn't mean that the software has to be open source, much less GPL. If you ask me, a lot of people have interpreted the spirit of open source as the right to demand that every developer (even ones doing so for free) give them their source code or else, and start claiming that they're being "deprived" otherwise. You're not. No one owes you anything. I'm sorry if you thought this platform was "open" in that its hardware would be 100% publicly documented with open source drivers for everything - if you did then you were wrong.

Like many things that people are passionate about, I think that their opponents would be more receptive to their cause if they were a little less zealous, hostile, condescending, and dogmatic about it. I'm not singling you out, not for what was a pretty mild gesture on your part, but responding to what has been a widescale phenomenon of people insisting that their misguided sense of entitlement has been breached when they don't get to see someone's source and make modifications (regardless of whether or not they have legitimate application in mind for either). Rather than accept that some people will, for various reasons, not want to put something under the GPL (possibly under a more restrictive license that still makes code visible), many of GPL's ardent supporters seem to cut themselves off from the "proprietary supporters" and then operate under the assumption that everyone within their selected communities has embraced their religious vows. Several times now have I seen the sentiment of "it's not a good thing to encourage more people to use Linux if they're going to be using closed source software on it." For many open source seems to be a lot more than a practical decision, it's an ideal. I've literally known people who have said that free software is the most important cause in the world to them - I have even known one person who has said that it's as strong as any kind of religious faith; he said it was his reason for living. It's understandable why people like this would want to be amongst communities that exclusively share this ideal.

But this isn't one of those communities.

 

[Tom`]

...

No one is demanding that anyone GPL their software - I (and many others) feel that this would benefit the greatest number of people, but no one is forcing you to use a license you don't want to, for your own software, nor do we want to do this.

We do demand, though, that if you plan to distribute a piece of GPL software, you respect the GPL, and the wishes of the author, in complying fully with the terms of the license, and distributing source either with the program, or on request, or providing an offer good for at least three years to get the source in a customary format.

Specifically, by all means go ahead and install closed-source software under Linux - feel free, if that encourages more people to use Linux, then fine. I myself have some proprietary codecs and some other programs like Google Earth installed.

Loading closed-source modules into the kernel is a special case, though, because all such modules are by definition derived works of the kernel, where regular software is not. This means that kernel modules have to comply with the GPL. That's the legal and philosophical argument. Just as important, though, closed-source modules are bad because they force people to use a specific kernel version, potentially crippling the OS. Even for those who sneer at the ideology, there are sound practical reasons for the restrictions.

 

[Chip]

And with that, I would like to bring this week's episode of "Moot Point Theater" to a close.

The SGX driver for the Pandora will be a binary blob, and it will have an open source shim which will make it fully GPL compliant. It's going to work just like every other high-end graphics driver in Linux.

If you to keep playing "My Licensing Agreement Is Better Than Your Licensing Agreement", please take it to Off Topic.

 

[Squidge]

and let me say it again before people start again: None of Pandora's drivers will force anyone to use a specific kernel version. You will be able to upgrade your kernel and recompile all the drivers. Some (maybe more than one, maybe not, we don't know yet) will depend on a binary datafile.

The end result is that all drivers are GPL compliant, and thus do not taint the kernel.

Lets leave it at that. There will be more information when the driver is released to the public.

 

[maciek_urbanski]

Such I interesting topic - I ought to visit here more, but I'm very busy with my tiny Pandora project... B)

Anyway, I have question for you guys.

As some of you probably know I want to provide complete specification of SGX530 (contained in OMAP3530 processor).
At the beginning most people were confusing my work with 'providing alternative, open-source OpenGL ES driver'. So again and again I said that this is not the case.

But there will be an open-source API for interfacing SGX directly. This API will be very thin, and will mimic internal state of HW as close as possible.

Pros of this solution are obvious:

• exposing full HW capabilities
• lean & mean driver
• no compilation time
• devs can optimize your shaders to death

But there are also cons:

• have to learn new API
• have to learn new shader assembler

So question for the devs: When 'libsgx' will be ready, will you use it your projects ?