Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD R600 LLVM Back-End Called For Inclusion

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

  • #31
    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.

    Comment


    • #32
      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

      Comment


      • #33
        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.

        Comment


        • #34
          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...

          Comment


          • #35
            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.

            Comment


            • #36
              Yeah, we're arguing about MLAA license (it seems free to me) and also about whether the shaped charge on an RPG (which can punch through the armour on most tanks) can take down an armoured helicopter gunship (of course it can).

              The llvm license discussion seems to have gone off the rails again. I went back and checked the license text just to be sure...

              IT DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN'T SHIP TO RUSSIA AND CHINA PERIOD, it just says that you can't export to some countries unless you have an export license *or* one of the standard license exceptions applies (I believe the latter is the case for the llvm backend code but I am not a lawyer and definitely not *your* lawyer ), and that you can't export the code to those countries if it is controlled under the export regs or if you combine it with other stuff such that the result is controlled under the export regs (duh !). That is just standard US export law, very similar to the export laws in 40+ other countries. Look up the Wassenaar Arrangement if you want an idea of how all these countries align their regs.

              The default license says "here it is, you can do whatever you want with it, but you are responsible for thinking about how export laws apply, and here are a couple of examples in case you don't know what we're talking about". That is the standard license text, and using it is the fastest way to get something into public view.

              If we want to release something under a less restrictive license like X11 or UIUC, we basically have to go through the export laws ourselves, determine what export category the code falls into, obtain export licenses ourselves if required, basically taking on more of the export worries ourselves. Doing that is time consuming, expensive, and means we need to set up a bunch of internal processes to make sure that we don't go outside the dotted lines for that export category in future.
              Last edited by bridgman; 03-28-2012, 12:53 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Nedanfor View Post
                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...
                Saying you can only use it as part of Mesa does make it nonfree. It takes away my ability to use the software for any purpose, including putting it in other software.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                  Yeah, we're arguing about MLAA license (it seems free to me) and also about whether the shaped charge on an RPG (which can punch through the armour on most tanks) can take down an armoured helicopter gunship (of course it can).

                  The llvm license discussion seems to have gone off the rails again. I went back and checked the license text just to be sure...

                  IT DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN'T SHIP TO RUSSIA AND CHINA PERIOD, it just says that you can't export to some countries unless you have an export license *or* one of the standard license exceptions applies (I believe the latter is the case for the llvm backend code but I am not a lawyer and definitely not *your* lawyer ), and that you can't export the code to those countries if it is controlled under the export regs or if you combine it with other stuff such that the result is controlled under the export regs (duh !). That is just standard US export law, very similar to the export laws in 40+ other countries. Look up the Wassenaar Arrangement if you want an idea of how all these countries align their regs.

                  The default license says "here it is, you can do whatever you want with it, but you are responsible for thinking about how export laws apply, and here are a couple of examples in case you don't know what we're talking about". That is the standard license text, and using it is the fastest way to get something into public view.

                  If we want to release something under a less restrictive license like X11 or UIUC, we basically have to go through the export laws ourselves, determine what export category the code falls into, obtain export licenses ourselves if required, basically taking on more of the export worries ourselves. Doing that is time consuming, expensive, and means we need to set up a bunch of internal processes to make sure that we don't go outside the dotted lines for that export category in future.
                  So why does AMD have to abuse copyright law to tell me I can't do something that's illegal?

                  Maybe you should throw in the "You are not allowed to kill people or double park" clause just to make sure you didn't miss anything? It's entirely outside of the scope of a copyright license to try to enforce criminal law. Leave it to the government to do their own damned dirty work.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    What aspect of copyright law do you think this license abuses ?

                    The difference between laws for export and those for murder and double-parking is that the former laws require "closing the loop" with whoever receives the materials under most conditions while (AFAIK) the latter laws do not. If you check the actual EARs this will become more clear :

                    http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.htm

                    Click on "Export Administration Regulations" on the left hand side. Most industrial countries have similar laws.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by DaemonFC View Post
                      Saying you can only use it as part of Mesa does make it nonfree. It takes away my ability to use the software for any purpose, including putting it in other software.
                      I think you really misunderstood what is written in that license. You can use the code in your personal project, if you write in the binary this sentence:
                      + * "Uses Jimenez's MLAA. Copyright (C) 2010 by Jorge Jimenez, Belen Masia,
                      + * Jose I. Echevarria, Fernando Navarro and Diego Gutierrez."
                      I will try to explain to you why you can do anything with this piece of software.

                      + * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
                      + * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
                      So you have to simply follow two conditions.

                      + * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
                      + * this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
                      First condition like the first condition of 2-clause BSD license.

                      + * 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."
                      Second condition like the second condition of 2-clause BSD license.

                      + * Only for use in the Mesa project, this point 2 is filled by naming the
                      + * technique Jimenez's MLAA in the Mesa config options.
                      If your project is the Mesa project, then you can fill the second condition in another way, if you want. Period. It's an exception. My first language is italian and my english skills aren't so good, but trust me, this is free open source software.

                      The second clause exceptions doesn't mean 'You can only use this code for Mesa', at least not in any language that I can understand.

                      PS. If you speak other languages, I can try to explain to you this through private messages.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X