Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 9th Nov 2012 22:11 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 541849
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-07-16
"Protecting the integrity" by allowing some closed blobs to use dma-buf but not nvidia? Yes, all the SoC drivers that use dma-buf are closed. Sure they have a GPL component in the kernel, which is how they're allowed to use dma-buf, but that component won't do you much without the userspace blobs.
So there's no "protecting integrity" or "making a moral stance" or anything by keeping Nvidia out. It's that some vendors have managed to isolate just enough of their driver into a GPL component, while Nvidia can't because of how their driver is put together.
Also, the first two versions of dma-buf did not have those symbols exported as gpl-only: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2012-October/029107...