Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD R600 LLVM Back-End Called For Inclusion

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

  • pingufunkybeat
    replied
    Are people seriously discussing whether the modified BSD license (the Jimenez MLAA one, with the attribution clause) is a Free Software license?

    The fact that you're not allowed to use open source together with AMD GPUs in Russia and China is the REAL problem, not MLAA. While I don't expect AMD to go around suing Linux users in China for copyright infringement and believe Bridgman that they were forced to put that there to avoid US governmental sanctions, I do wish that a better way of handling this is introduced.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nedanfor
    replied
    Originally posted by DaemonFC View Post
    "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.
    It isn't a rule, it's an exception. The generic license is 100% free software and the exception isn't restrictive, therefore it is free software. I'm sure that FSF and OSI would agree with me, because none of the four freedom is limited by this license. What does matter is what you can do, not how you have to attribute the rights...

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    Originally posted by DaemonFC View Post
    "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.
    DaemonFC, I think the full license text (item 2 anyways) says :

    - you have to do something (include this specific copyright notice in binary distributions)
    - in the specific case of the Mesa project, you can do it this (simpler) way

    + * 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.
    "Only for use in the Mesa project" *seems* to be related to a specific, simplified way of handling attribution for binary distributions which only applies to Mesa.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thatguy
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium
    wow now its all clear the Iranian are the "Evil" and because of this there is no "Open-source" software for Iran people.

    and any people with another Opinion are : "Just stupid" and should "shut the fuck up already"

    Great this is how AMERICA fix problems just kill the people with another "Opinion" via """CIA""" murderer organisation.

    then they "Shut the fuck up" because death mann's can't talk.
    Who fucking cares about the Irainians, if they don't like their government, they should deal with that problem internally.

    Secondly, software isn't a political platform. Its just software, and its bound by embargos and law regarding trade limitations.

    Get the fuck over it. If the USA wanted to kill Irainians, we have nukes. it'd be a hell of allot easier to do that.

    Now STFU and troll somewhere else.

    Thanks

    K

    Bye now

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by DaemonFC View Post
    "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.
    I hate to break it to you, but they've never cared about that. They have made it a point to license Mesa liberally precisely so that people can take their code and make proprietary drivers with it, etc. That's why they don't use the GPL.

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • zxy_thf
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • DaemonFC
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Drago
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • darkbasic
    replied
    Originally posted by Thatguy View Post
    Your just stupid.
    No, he is just a troll (ok, maybe a stupid one).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X