Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2013: A Good Year For Open-Source AMD?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wait I don't get it, may be this can be explained to me. Actually you are saying that you bind the power of this developer to work on features that possibly will never be released due to license issues? Wouldn't it make much more sense to let this developer work on things that still have known issues/are unsupported, but can be released? And may be let him work on what he is doing now when your legal department has done its job to find out if you can release that work?
    I mean, you yourself stated that manpower is not a resource that you have a vast amount of, so why are you wasting it?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by TobiSGD View Post
      may be let him work on what he is doing now when your legal department has done its job to find out if you can release that work?
      I mean, you yourself stated that manpower is not a resource that you have a vast amount of, so why are you wasting it?
      The legal guys look at his code and decide whether it can be released - if nobody works on UVD then they will never have anything to review, so nothing could ever be released.

      Another reason to work on it is that people are asking for it.

      Comment


      • Correct. Typically we also need to modify the code a few times before it can be released, so no code = no progress towards release. In some cases we are able to get a yes/no before doing any work, but for more complex blocks that is usually not the case.

        Note that the review is really more by technical leads across the company than by legal -- the model is more like "legal figures out what acceptable risk is and establishes guidelines for the project, technical leads figure out what the specific risks are, then if B < A we release". It's not really that simple but you get the idea.

        In the specific case of UVD, what we said (and did) was postpone any significant work until we had mostly caught up with the introduction of new hardware and had initial support in place for the APU parts, ie for the first few years of the project. At that point we felt it was worth diverting some developer time to work on decode acceleration, with the knowledge that we might not be able to release the results of that work, because video decode was considered so important by our users.

        There are good arguments for and against this, obviously, depending on where video decode sits on your personal list of priorities. I suspect that roughly half our users felt we started too late and the other half felt we started too early.
        Last edited by bridgman; 06-06-2012, 11:32 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by TobiSGD View Post
          Wait I don't get it, may be this can be explained to me. Actually you are saying that you bind the power of this developer to work on features that possibly will never be released due to license issues? Wouldn't it make much more sense to let this developer work on things that still have known issues/are unsupported, but can be released? And may be let him work on what he is doing now when your legal department has done its job to find out if you can release that work?
          I mean, you yourself stated that manpower is not a resource that you have a vast amount of, so why are you wasting it?
          "to license issues?"

          no its not a license issue its a DRM/Copyprotection issue

          and the shader based solution is not efficiency because an efficiency shader based solution need the stars micro controller inside of the UVD unit to reduce the overheat to the CPU.

          " so why are you wasting it?"

          LOL i asked the same question to "bridgman" -->why are you wasting our rare resources ?

          but the answer is: the customers ask for this feature so they try to work on these wishes.

          Comment

          Working...
          X