Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ATI R600g Gains Mip-Map, Face Culling Support

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

  • Originally posted by Agdr View Post
    Thus, the proprietary program will be much better, everyone will use that, which means that no one will contribute to your open source program, delivering the final blow to it.
    Which, interestingly, is exactly what didn't happen with BSD/OS, which died in 2003. Nice try, though.

    Adam

    Comment


    • Originally posted by elanthis View Post
      The GPL is anti-social and discriminates against people based on what they want to use your code for while permissive licenses are friendly to everyone, independent of whether they agree to your specific, narrow-minded, and unforgiving world view or paranoias.
      Permissive licenses are more social and more friendly than "copyleft" licenses, and anybody who values people more than computers should avoid the L(GPL) and go for a true Open license.
      What you are basically saying is that if I choose to release software under the GPL then I'm not only anti-social or engage in anti-social behavior but I'm also narrow-minded and suffer from paranoias. Well thank you I think it's a lot better than the usual GPL-NAZI, COMMUNIST and whatever more comes out of the BSD camp. But still it's a moral judgment, your moral judgment, and you morals are not necessarily mine.

      All in all I don't think it's wise to choose a software license based on subjective values such as morals, one should choose a license on what one hopes to achieve with it.

      While far from perfect, when it comes to open source software I do have a strong preference for the GPL and LGPL in some cases. But regardless everyone should not listen to me or you but just explore the different licenses out there and pick the one that suits her/him the best. Whether it be GPL, BSD-style or proprietary it's fine with me. Although I do prefer to contribute to (L)GPL licensed projects, I won't judge people on their license choice if they choose to pick another license and frankly I don't like to be judged on my choices and preferences regarding software licensing as well.

      The only gripe I really have with closed source software is when companies such as ATI and NVidia use it to lock me out of my own hardware, that really pisses me off. Other than that I'm pretty satisfied with the (mostly GPL'd) open source software ecosystem out there.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by curaga View Post
        That's not in any of the GPL licenses, it's in the boilerplate attached to files (if desired). See the license page on busybox.net for info on the "or later" wording.
        There is this "or later" thing that is in the GPLv3 and also GPLv2.1 if I'm not mistaking.

        Change is unlikely to cease once GPLv3 is released. If new threats to users' freedom develop, we will have to develop GPL version 4. It is important to make sure that programs will have no trouble upgrading to GPLv4 when the time comes.

        One way to do this is to release a program under “GPL version 3 or any later version”.
        Source: http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html

        Even though BusyBox code, as a whole, can only be used under GPL version 2, some individual files may have more permissive licenses: "GPL version 2 or later" - meaning that you can also reuse the code from this source file for a project which is distributed under GPLv3, and "Public domain" - the code in these files have no licensing restrictions whatsoever.
        Source http://www.busybox.net/license.html

        Some files in BusyBox are indeed "or later" and those files can be upgraded to GPLv2.1 and GPLv3. The Copyright holder(s) decide if they make entire, partial, or no files available as "or later".

        Comment


        • BSD is a license for a perfect world in which everyone shares and those who share get rewarded and respected.

          GPL is a license for an imperfect world in which those who share get shafted and have their code used against them.

          There are times where a BSD-like license is preferable. But most of the time, it feels a lot like bringing a self-baked cake to Walmart, and then having to pay for parking on their property as a "thank you".

          Comment


          • Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
            There are times where a BSD-like license is preferable. But most of the time, it feels a lot like bringing a self-baked cake to Walmart, and then having to pay for parking on their property as a "thank you".
            Huh... I'd guess that if it really felt that way, people wouldn't be releasing their code under a BSD-like license.

            Adam

            Comment


            • I've released code under BSD-like licenses, FWIW.

              And I'd do it again when the license fits.

              The idea of donating charity to big corporations so they can screw you over (like they did with Kerberos) is terrible, though. why should I donate code to multi-billion dollar companies?

              They are selling products, and ask for money in return. So if they use my code, they should offer money in return.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                The idea of donating charity to big corporations so they can screw you over (like they did with Kerberos) is terrible, though. why should I donate code to multi-billion dollar companies?

                They are selling products, and ask for money in return. So if they use my code, they should offer money in return.
                <sarcasm>Well I'm glad this didn't descend into a licence debate that didn't help anybody</sarcasm>.

                To add to this debate, I provide my own perspective:

                If good code is BSD licenced, (e.g. OpenSSH) then everybody will use it, even if they do put it behind a proprietary licence. The downside is that they *might* not contribute money/equipment/anything back to the community, the upside is that the *end users* get the best code of any sort running on their machines.

                The BSD licence strikes me as a "it's for the good of everybody, even if it's not great for us"-style licence, whereas GPL strikes me as a "only help people if they are prepared to release their modifications."-style licence.

                People may disagree, and I do find the differing points of view interesting, but if you're going to flame me then please go and have a cup of tea instead - we'll both feel better for it

                Comment


                • Originally posted by archibald View Post
                  The BSD licence strikes me as a "it's for the good of everybody, even if it's not great for us"-style licence, whereas GPL strikes me as a "only help people if they are prepared to release their modifications."-style licence.
                  I feel compelled to point out that the GNU GPL only requires you to release anything if you distribute your program. You may modify any GNU GPL program and use it within your own organization without giving anyone any of your changes.

                  In other news far more relevant to this threads topic, R600g now has point/sprite rendering support http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mes...98a6f5f2142207

                  Comment


                  • People have short memories.

                    http://www.networkworld.com/news/2000/0511kerberos.html

                    Do you know why Wine changed their license to LGPL?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                      People have short memories.

                      http://www.networkworld.com/news/2000/0511kerberos.html

                      Do you know why Wine changed their license to LGPL?
                      Because Cedega was pulling Wine code, extended it with their own Direct3D shit and didn't contribute back.

                      That however is _NOT_ embrace, extend and extinguish.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X