Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD R600 LLVM Back-End Called For Inclusion

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

  • Thatguy
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nedanfor
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • darkbasic
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • DaemonFC
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    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.
    Last edited by bridgman; 03-27-2012, 09:15 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nedanfor
    replied
    Originally posted by DaemonFC View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • DaemonFC
    replied
    Originally posted by Ansla View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ansla
    replied
    Originally posted by DaemonFC View Post
    // 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...

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DaemonFC
    replied
    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)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X