Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD R600 LLVM Back-End Called For Inclusion

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by Nedanfor View Post
    Why Jimenez' MLAA isn't free software?
    It's only licensed for use in Mesa. Outside of that, it has an obnoxious advertising clause that has to be used there.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by bridgman View Post
      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.
      Fine, but next time please make sure we could use it to drop nuclear bombs on australia
      ## VGA ##
      AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
      Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by DaemonFC View Post
        It's only licensed for use in Mesa. Outside of that, it has an obnoxious advertising clause that has to be used there.
        My understanding of english language is obviously worse than that of a native speaker, but it doesn't look like that it isn't free software IMHO:

        Originally posted by Mesa's log
        + * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
        + * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
        + *
        + * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
        + * this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
        + *
        + * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the following statement:
        + *
        + * "Uses Jimenez's MLAA. Copyright (C) 2010 by Jorge Jimenez, Belen Masia,
        + * Jose I. Echevarria, Fernando Navarro and Diego Gutierrez."
        + *
        + * Only for use in the Mesa project, this point 2 is filled by naming the
        + * technique Jimenez's MLAA in the Mesa config options.
        So, if you are using that code outside of Mesa, you only need to attribute the rights with a single sentence. BSD, MIT and CC-BY licenses require the same thing: attribution. For Mesa there is an exception, but it's not the rule. You can do what you want with that code, if you respect that clause and write that sentence in the binary, so your freedom is safe.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by bridgman View Post
          This is another of those "debated areas" as far as I know. Section 8 of GPLv2 explicitly talks about geographical restrictions, and section 7 (IIRC) talks about complying with other regs & requirements. IIRC it's the view that "adding these restrictions to the license doesn't actually help" which has broader support, not "these restrictions are incompatible with <license>".

          The FSF does argue strongly against them in the "free sw" introduction, but GPLv2 and others do include some explicit support for them.

          I don't know the correct answer, just that if you ask three people you're definitely getting more than one answer (and there are only two possible ).

          If you're asking why the initial release of code had this license, it's just because we could release a lot earlier with this license than with something else. Getting agreement that something less is safe and applicable takes longer, and we wanted the code out in public repos so other developers could work with it.

          If you're asking "why does AMD have to follow US law" it's that "being headquartered in the US" thing AFAIK.
          Thank you for all your efforts, the zealots will just have to get over the license problems. Your hands are tied as a legal entity operating in the United States.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Qaridarium
            i say this because I know your "version" is Illegitimate.

            AMD can """"not"""" be sentenced as guilty for another Mann's crime.

            because of this its complete idiotic!




            just tell me: why should I read Illegitimate NAZI-666-America-666-NAZI LAWs?

            its like Adolf Hitler Enabling Act of 1933 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933



            anyway the USA do have such a law its called: "Catastrophic Emergency" right of disposal ""all federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations""

            source: http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/25/25796/1.html




            "Logic" is still valid and it doesn?t matter whatever the crazy US freaks write in a book Logic is still valid.

            AMD is innocent for another Mann?s crime.

            if amd release this as pure BSD licence and another MANN send this to iran then the other man is guilty and not amd.



            sure you can always chance the license but your chose of license show the "inner" mind

            your inner mind: "Its open-source but not for Iranian people" this is just Racism

            and Racism is never legitimate!

            Just shut the fuck up already. they are bound by laws governing corporations and are required to take a great many legal steps becuase of that. due diligence and negligence come to mind.

            so deal with it and move on with your life. Its no racism. Your just stupid.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Thatguy View Post
              Your just stupid.
              No, he is just a troll (ok, maybe a stupid one).
              ## VGA ##
              AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
              Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

              Comment


              • #27
                Hell Q, what do you want Bridgman to do about this. It is not up to him. The system is fucked up, especially in US. And this is not just about export laws. I am most worried about patent system of theirs. I am glad that AMD released code early, and I hope it would be merged with LLVM project soon. Big shouts to every one at AMD. Thanks.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by Nedanfor View Post
                  My understanding of english language is obviously worse than that of a native speaker, but it doesn't look like that it isn't free software IMHO:



                  So, if you are using that code outside of Mesa, you only need to attribute the rights with a single sentence. BSD, MIT and CC-BY licenses require the same thing: attribution. For Mesa there is an exception, but it's not the rule. You can do what you want with that code, if you respect that clause and write that sentence in the binary, so your freedom is safe.
                  "Only for use in the Mesa project?"

                  That makes it nonfree and nonopen. They don't seem to care that Mesa is now proprietary software because they accept things with nonfree terms.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                    I think what you just described *is* US law... A gives it to B only if B agrees to same rules. It's certainly what all the standard shipping docco has said for the last 30 years (long before I joined ATI/AMD). Not 100% sure though -- I live in Canada

                    Anyways, as Tom already said we can work on changing the license if the majority interpretation is that it's a problem... just takes longer and takes time away from doing more useful work.
                    I'd lilke to point out a more practical problem: both China and Russia resides in Contry Group D:1 accroading to Supplement No. 1 to Part 740S page 5 (Sorry for missing the link because I forget it )
                    In other words, the licence bans a quarter of Internet users (574 millions in 2,267 millions, see http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm), including me

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Qaridarium
                      he the "manager" can force lawyers to fix this in court.
                      Q, I know you don't work for a living, so let me explain how the real world works for a second.

                      CEOs > Lawyers > Managers > workers.

                      bridgman being able to "force" anything is something only true in your fantasies. The only thing he could do would be to resign from AMD, and then sit and whine on this message board all day. I think we have enough of those people already.

                      amd do have a high chance to win this in court because: if the law is valid then its also valid without the licence agreement.

                      because LAW do not need: Licence agreement. because the "Law" is OVER the "Licence" because a licence is a agreement between 2 civilian party’s within the "LAW"
                      Umm, wait. Who are they suing? Themselves? They are the ones who have licensed the code this way.
                      Last edited by smitty3268; 03-28-2012, 02:30 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X