Efforts to bring glitzy new graphics to Linux are fuelling an old conflict: Does proprietary software belong in Linux?
The issue involves drivers which plug into the kernel at the heart of the open source operating system.
The use of such drivers is an essential part of all operating systems to run at all, and it is all but necessary for the recent push to bring eye-catching graphics to the operating system user interface. To deliver 3D effects and similar visuals for the desktop, the software taps into a computer's graphics chip. And although the Linux kernel is open source, drivers from dominant graphics chipmakers Nvidia and ATI Technologies are not.
Proprietary drivers pit purists against pragmatists. The Free Software Foundation, which wrote the GPL that governs Linux, says that the licence prohibits proprietary drivers.
But while the FSF tries to be an irresistible force, they're running into an immovable object, in the form of graphics chipmakers, which are keeping 3D graphics drivers proprietary.
"If Linux expects broader vendor support, the community needs to capitulate to proprietary software involvement," says Raven Zachary, an analyst at The 451 Group.
Help wanted
To write open source graphics drivers without help from Nvidia or ATI is tough. "The proprietary drivers are largely the only choice for those with modern graphics processors. Nvidia's GeForce 7 series and ATI's Radeon X1000 series both presently do not offer any open source drivers," says Michael Larabel, founder of high-end Linux hardware site Phoronix.
Efforts to reverse-engineer open source equivalents often are months behind and produce only "rudimentary" drivers, Larabel added.
Which way will Linux tilt?
Stephen Shankland explains in this podcast why a move to bring sharper graphics to Linux has rekindled a dormant debate over whether there's a place for proprietary software in Linux.
ATI's driver remains proprietary for intellectual-property reasons, the Canadian company says. "There's third-party intellectual property that ATI has licensed that is required by law to be protected," says Matthew Tippett, ATI's Linux software engineering manager. "And the graphics market is hotly competitive, and particularly in the high-end cards, we have lots of intellectual property. We want to maintain the proprietary, trade-secret nature of that as long as possible."
For Nvidia, intellectual property is a secondary issue. "It's so hard to write a graphics driver that open-sourcing it would not help," says Andrew Fear, Nvidia's software product manager. In addition, customers aren't asking for open source drivers, he says.
Some Nvidia components are open, including some driver configuration tools and a driver component that interfaces to the kernel. "We believe in open source where it makes sense," Fear says.
Both companies are cooperating with efforts to give Linux a 3D interface competitive with Apple's Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows Vista. ATI is working "closely with Novell" on its Xgl software, Tippett says.
Nvidia prefers the design of the AIGLX approach from Red Hat, says Andy Ritger, manager of Nvidia's Unix graphics drivers. "The eye-candy stuff is quite cool. I think it looks better than Vista, but I'm biased," he says.
Open source advocacy
Linux founder and leader Linus Torvalds has argued that some proprietary modules are permissible because they're not derived from the Linux kernel, but were originally designed to work with other operating systems. If they had originated from the kernel, that would require them to be covered by the GPL.
"Historically, there's been things like the original Andrew file system module: a standard file system that really wasn't written for Linux in the first place," Torvalds wrote in a 2003 mailing list posting. "Personally, I think that case wasn't a derived work, and I was willing to tell the AFS guys so."
The FSF sharply disagrees. "If the kernel were pure GPL in its license terms... you couldn't link proprietary video drivers into it, whether dynamically or statically," FSF attorney Eben Moglen said in a January interview.
Kernel developers have kept proprietary drivers at arms' length, adding a feature years ago that could be used to block proprietary modules from loading. And in February, Greg Kroah-Hartman, a kernel programmer who...
For more, click here...
Talkback
Proprietary kernel modules are all very well when they work, but you are chained to the vendor's bugfix schedule when they don't. And the kernel hackers can't be expected to help when you've got a black-box driver doing who-knows-what to system memory.
The Open Source Radeon driver may be rudimentary, but it works and will keep on working for so long as there are users out there with the hardware to use it.
Still, it's good to know that NVIDIA are less concerned with intellectual property issues than they are with the complexity of the drivers themselves. Maybe their engineers could work *with* the Xorg / Linux / BSD graphics programmers? After all, some of the Linux Kernel Maintainers actually *work* for Intel. So what's to stop NVIDIA submitting patches too?