AMD R600 LLVM Back-End Called For Inclusion

[bridgman]

It happens. AFAIK *we* don't have to send the ninja assassins to your house though...

[DaemonFC]

It happens. AFAIK *we* don't have to send the ninja assassins to your house though...

Then you shouldn't have a problem with removing the parts that give you the right to "send ninja assassins to my house."

[bridgman]

Well, I hope that anyone interested in distributing your software gets you to fix the license or just deletes that entire section of code. It's bad enough that Mesa is accepting non-free, non-open code like MLAA already.

I don't know what will happen. A whole pile of lawyers feel that standard license text *is* open source compatible... as I said, we just wanted to get the code out in public quickly so went with the standard license until we at least knew where the code was going to end up. We were initially thinking it would fetch up in clover or mesa but current thinking is llvm.

[bridgman]

Then you shouldn't have a problem with removing the parts that give you the right to "send ninja assassins to my house."

Already done AFAIK. If you see anything about ninjas in the license agreement let me know and I'll take it back to legal.

[DaemonFC]

This is exactly the kind of crap that makes its way into licenses that claim to be open source and makes them not open source.

If I want to use the software to make nuclear bombs to drop on Australia, then a prohibition on making nuclear bombs to drop on Australia would be outside the scope of an open source license. (Of course it would still be illegal, but you don't get to tell me not to do it with a copyright license then claim that license is free and open)

[bridgman]

Yep, that one is pretty black and white. I think the lawyers would agree with you there.

Export restrictions vs open source licenses are a lot less clear, at least to me.

[Ansla]

// If you use the software (in whole or in part), you shall adhere to all
// applicable U.S., European, and other export laws, including but not limited
// to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations

This makes your code, not OSI-compliant open source. Please fix it to make it open source.

You could change it to say "We urge US, European, and other citizens to check their local export laws before distributing this software." and be in compliance with that section. As it is, you are most certainly not.

Edit: This also bounds me, an American, to European law, and if I don't obey law I'm not bound by, I violate AMD's nasty license. As well as "other" laws, so I have to comply with every export law in the world now? What happens if I have to violate Russian export control laws to satisy Uzbekistan's? Even though I'm an American?

Or they could just change "you shall adhere to all applicable U.S., European, and other export laws" to "you shall adhere to all U.S., European, and other export laws applicable to you", which I think is what was meant from the begining, forcing an user to obey all laws in existance anywhere in world is just dumb and in many cases not possible as different laws in different countries contradict each other. But, IANAL myself...

[DaemonFC]

forcing an user to obey all laws in existance anywhere in world is just dumb and in many cases not possible as different laws in different countries contradict each other.

Which is why I can't believe Bridgman when he said lawyers looked at this and OK'd it. I sure hope AMD isn't PAYING them if they're going to give that kind of advice.

[Nedanfor]

Well, I hope that anyone interested in distributing your software gets you to fix the license or just deletes that entire section of code. It's bad enough that Mesa is accepting non-free, non-open code like MLAA already.

Why Jimenez' MLAA isn't free software?

[bridgman]

Q, have you actually read the US export control laws (the BIS regs) or are you just saying "what would be nice if it were true" ?

Export control laws are probably the most complex and contradictary legislation around, and right now they appear to be getting worse. They are inconsistent and incompatible between countries, but that doesn't make them any less "the law", and acknowledging them in a license agreement doesn't make them any more restrictive.

Anyways, now that we know which project the code should end up in it may make sense to change the license. I've already said a few times that we went with the standard license to get the code out in public more quickly, but it doesn't seem to be registering so I'll say it one more time.