Luis Chamberlain sent out the modules changes today for the Linux 6.6 merge window. Most notable with the modules update is a change that better builds up the defenses against NVIDIA’s proprietary kernel driver from using GPL-only symbols. Or in other words, bits that only true open-source drivers should be utilizing and not proprietary kernel drivers like NVIDIA’s default Linux driver in respecting the original kernel code author’s intent.

Back in 2020 when the original defense was added, NVIDIA recommended avoiding the Linux 5.9 for the time being. They ended up having a supported driver several weeks later. It will be interesting to see this time how long Linux 6.6+ thwarts their kernel driver.

  • Ertebolle@kbin.social
    434·
    10 months ago

    a) Good for them

    b) How long before NVIDIA throws up their hands at the whole thing and does their own Linux distro + pushes all their cloud AI customers to use it? (it doesn’t seem like they’re ever going to be shamed / coerced into actually open-sourcing their driver)

    • Laser@feddit.de
      28·
      10 months ago

      There’s an interesting discussion about the whole topic on the Phoronix forums about this. Some people claim that removing them and Nvidia’s current behavior is a DMCA violation:

      1. The kernel includes IP only licensed under GPLv2.
      2. While a module linked against the kernel isn’t necessarily a derived work which in turn would need to be licensed GPLv2 as well, there are specific interfaces that are meant for internal use and by their very nature would make your work derived if using them. These are the interfaces marked EXPORT_GPL_ONLY.
      3. Using these interfaces with a module not licensed GPLv2, you taint the kernel and violate the licensing.
      4. Removing the check, you aren’t necessarily yet violating GPLv2, but you’re removing a technical protection measure which is a violation of the DMCA.

      It also raises the question why you’d remove checks that only prevent a possible GPLv2 violation if you’re not violating GPLv2 anyways as Nvidia claims.

      • poweruser@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        5·
        10 months ago

        you aren’t necessarily yet violating GPLv2, but you’re removing a technical protection measure which is a violation of the DMCA.

        Isn’t overcoming a technical limit a violation itself? That’s what made DeCSS illegal. They didn’t have to prove anyone was actually copying DVDs with it, just that DeCSS could allow you to copy a DVD

        • yum13241@lemm.ee
          1·
          10 months ago

          Yes, even if it’s a dialog box with only a “No” button, despite how easy it would be to get it to return a different value.

          DISCLAIMER: IANAL, this is not legal advice.

    • Zeth0s@lemmy.world
      3·
      10 months ago

      B) can’t happen because of gpl. Even if it could, not many customers will move to an nvidia distro. ML people need good distros and good drivers.

      If a hypothetical nvidia distro would speed up training by 10% but cause drop of productivity of humans of as small as 5%, no many will “buy” it. We can throw more hardware, people are the bottleneck nowadays

    • off_brand_@beehaw.org
      2·
      10 months ago

      Not to be contrarian, but b) could well be a full decade of work and numerous individual projects