On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Sylvain Beucler <[email protected]> wrote: >> What if CUDA isn't a dependency per-se, but rather one of several >> backends? > > Free software users mustn't be enticed to use proprietary software. > If there are multiple backends, the best (or equal-best) backend must > rely on free software. If CUDA is a suboptimal (or equal-best) > backend, that's ok. If CUDA is a better backend than a free software > alternative, that's not ok.
I think I'd also want to know what future plans were -- for instance, if the project originally used CUDA for historical reasons, but has serious plans to move to OpenCL (which I guess is basically a standard that can replace proprietary interfaces like CUDA, and will be implemented by hardware with free drivers, e.g., from ATI), that seems worthwhile to support. -Miles -- Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
