Quote: Whatever your own 'moral' views are, we're talking about a driver here. It's essentially just a connector between your (open/closed/whatever) software and a completely proprietary, closed, protected and covered under a shitload of patents and trade secrets GPU. It can be seen as an integral part of that GPU.

I don't want to get into an argument about it, but I do want to point out that a driver is software. It is neither hardware nor firmware (which technically is software itself), so it is software. It's a plugin to the kernel. It's software. And it needs to be free software, or it is too restrictive.

Quote: And as far as I know, there are no open source GPUs out there yet :)

Look into the Intel integrated graphics solutions. They are GPUs (not on a separate PCI-e card or anything), and they have an open source driver backed by Intel itself.

Furthermore, I know AMD is releasing their specs. (Yes, it's slashdot; if you don't find that reputable, Google it.)

EDIT: Here they are, I think.

Quote: Original post by Patrick Niedzielski

Quote: Whatever your own 'moral' views are, we're talking about a driver here. It's essentially just a connector between your (open/closed/whatever) software and a completely proprietary, closed, protected and covered under a shitload of patents and trade secrets GPU. It can be seen as an integral part of that GPU.

I don't want to get into an argument about it, but I do want to point out that a driver is software. It is neither hardware nor firmware (which technically is software itself), so it is software. It's a plugin to the kernel. It's software. And it needs to be free software, or it is too restrictive.

"too restrictive"? In what sense is it restrictive? Is the doornob on your house too restrictive because you don't know exactly how it was made, and might not know how/why all the parts work on the inside? Is that little plastic bushing really needed?

How about your microwave? Do you need to know how that works? Why is so bad about simply pressing the buttons and use it as it was designed? You're not likely to rebuild the interface so it reheats your coffee any faster.

Quote: Original post by Talroth
"too restrictive"? In what sense is it restrictive? Is the doornob on your house too restrictive because you don't know exactly how it was made, and might not know how/why all the parts work on the inside? Is that little plastic bushing really needed?

How about your microwave? Do you need to know how that works? Why is so bad about simply pressing the buttons and use it as it was designed? You're not likely to rebuild the interface so it reheats your coffee any faster.

Ah, but you are under no legal restriction of taking apart your doornob or microwave. What if you want to learn how your microwave works? You can take it apart and see. You can't do this with proprietary software, for the most part.

And is it really fair to compare something as complex as a program to a doornob? Do different internals of a doornob really make a difference? Because you can technically make one doornob more efficient doesn't mean you should. On the other hand, you can obviously make a program more efficient, and it is often worthwhile to do so. As a game developer, you should know this.

Patrick

Quote: Original post by Patrick Niedzielski
Ah, but you are under no legal restriction of taking apart your doornob or microwave. What if you want to learn how your microwave works? You can take it apart and see. You can't do this with proprietary software, for the most part.

And ? That software is not your property. It's NVidia's. It's a required part to make their GPU, which is also their IP, work. It might contain trade secrets they don't want to expose for competitive advantage. They have absolutely no obligation, neither legal nor ethical, to provide you with source or any other information about their GPU.

I mean, look at it this way. You're using closed and proprietary hardware. There is no way in hell NVidia, AMD or Intel will ever give you the circuit schematics of their GPUs for free. Yet this doesn't seem to bother you FOSS people, you happily use their hardware. But a tiny little piece of software, that doesn't do anything else than connect this complex hundred million transistor piece of closed and proprietary hardware to your open software is such a problem ? You really lost me here.

Either be consistent and stop using anything that "limits your freedom" (which in todays modern world would be akin to moving into a hut in Alaska living of the stuff you gather in the woods) or stop complaining, accept that some things you use are not your property, and start being productive by actually using the technically excellent driver NVidia made for Linux for free.

Quote: And ? That software is not your property. It's NVidia's.

Quote: I mean, look at it this way. You're using closed and proprietary hardware. There is no way in hell NVidia, AMD or Intel will ever give you the circuit schematics of their GPUs for free.

Of course, I own the hardware, as opposed to the software, which I do not own. Hell, I don't even own the medium on which it comes!

At the same time, they have no legal or ethical right to prevent me from figuring out how their hardware works. They have a legal right to prevent me from figuring out how their software works, though.

Quote: you FOSS people

Very hasty generalisation. Anyone who believes in Free/Open Source Software believes what I do? The two groups don't even believe the same thing.

Quote: It's a required part to make their GPU, which is also their IP, work. It might contain trade secrets they don't want to expose for competitive advantage.

How is it that Intel makes their money, then, if they have open source drivers?

Quote: They have absolutely no obligation, neither legal nor ethical, to provide you with source or any other information about their GPU.

They also have no obligation, legal or ethical, to prevent me from finding out information about the GPU myself. They do with software, though?

Quote: But a tiny little piece of software, that doesn't do anything else than connect this complex hundred million transistor piece of closed and proprietary hardware to your open software is such a problem ? You really lost me here.

Looking at it that way, why do we need a free kernel? Or userland utilities? Or libraries? All they do is connect the layer above them to the layer below them.

Quote: Either be consistent and stop using anything that "limits your freedom" (which in todays modern world would be akin to living in a hut in Alaska living of the stuff you gather in the woods)

Who are you to say that I do use anything that limits my freedom, to the legal extent I can? I don't use MP3s. I don't sign non-disclosure agreements. I don't believe in DRM, nor use software that contains it.

Quote: start being productive by actually using the technically excellent driver NVidia made for Linux for free.

If you didn't notice from the above posting, I was going to use this driver.

I've noticed this topic has started becoming an off-topic argument. Isn't it your job to prevent this, not to feed it? If there is going to be no more useful conversation about my question, close the thread please. This is getting nowhere.

Quote: Original post by Patrick Niedzielski
Do different internals of a doornob really make a difference?

Actually, they do. Look up "Key Bumping", with something like 5 modified keys, you can open nearly 80% of the locks in North America.

But still it is a matter of knowing ahead of time the basics of what you are buying. If you already have a bump proof lock on your door, why do you care to change it?

If you really believe you can make hardware interface drivers better than the company who made it, then why aren't you working for them and getting paid millions?

Are you honestly going to want to bother rewriting a graphics card driver? Don't you have better things to do with your time than reinvent working wheels?

Quote: Original post by Yann L

Quote: Original post by Patrick Niedzielski
Ah, but you are under no legal restriction of taking apart your doornob or microwave. What if you want to learn how your microwave works? You can take it apart and see. You can't do this with proprietary software, for the most part.

And ? That software is not your property. It's NVidia's. It's a required part to make their GPU, which is also their IP, work. It might contain trade secrets they don't want to expose for competitive advantage. They have absolutely no obligation, neither legal nor ethical, to provide you with source or any other information about their GPU.

(The emphasis on the word "ethical" is mine.)

Please take a step back and realize that this (the "ethical" part) is an opinion. That they have no legal obligation is a fact. That they have no ethical obligation is an opinion. I am not arguing that Your Opinion Is Wrong or anything crazy like that, but I would like you to acknowledge that it really is just an opinion, not fact.

I realize that you derive this opinion logically from an implicit philosophical/ethical system that underlies most of your thinking, probably without you being aware of it most of the time. [1] The point is that this philosophical system is not an immutable fact of nature. Quite clearly, RMS' underlying philosophical system is quite different from yours, and nothing in the world is going to change that.

So chill out and please realize that Other People Aren't Wrong, they just derive their opinion from an underlying philosophical system that is different from yours. Their values are different, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[1] I'm quite serious about that. Ask yourself, in private, why you believe that they have no ethical obligation to provide source code and/or other information. You should be able to come up with a reason. I'm not interested in your answer, by the way, I just think it's good to be aware of one's own motivations and thought structures.

Quote:
I mean, look at it this way. You're using closed and proprietary hardware. There is no way in hell NVidia, AMD or Intel will ever give you the circuit schematics of their GPUs for free. Yet this doesn't seem to bother you FOSS people, you happily use their hardware. But a tiny little piece of software, that doesn't do anything else than connect this complex hundred million transistor piece of closed and proprietary hardware to your open software is such a problem ? You really lost me here.

Have you looked at a graphics driver recently? Even the open source ones (which are a fraction the size of the proprietary ones) are anything but tiny.

The rest of your argument here is completely ridiculous. You don't seem to understand that people with ideals can be pragmatic, too.

Prefect,

Thank you. I think both Yann L and I should chill out. It's nothing big. Just a clash of opinions.

Cheers,
Patrick

Quote: Original post by Patrick Niedzielski

Quote: you FOSS people

Very hasty generalisation. Anyone who believes in Free/Open Source Software believes what I do? The two groups don't even believe the same thing.

Plus there is also a continuum between the two extremes. I agree with you that Yann, once again, overgeneralised FLOSS things (don't get me wrong, both of you did not post perfect replies, but only one of you is a moderator who should know better).

We are sliding off topic, but what the hey.

One thing I've always been curious about is the push to make only software, not hardware 'free and open source'. Why not hardware too ? You could build your own computer completely from scratch, optimize it for the task at hand, and learn how your system operates right down to the circuity - hardware raid controllers are far superior to software raid.