Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD R600 LLVM Back-End Called For Inclusion

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

  • DaemonFC
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    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).
    and even a ""Stinger"" do not have any chance against a modern "Helicopter" Weapon system in a military situation

    because: thermal imaging camera Guided automatic annihilation cannon
    this means the "Gun" shots automatic on all Thermal dots in full fighting range 2000-3000m

    this means all humans are Death instantly in a single flight over a area

    and even a human can shot the rocket the rocket never hit the target because all "modern" copters do have a automatic "Phalanx CIWS" like anti rocket system.

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

    this means: only naive humans think humans can fight with a RPG or Stinger against modern Weapon systems.

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    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).
    clueless at work.... we make a deal we "Simulate" this in a professional military simulator like OFP/ARMA2/VBS1/VBS2
    and everytime you win you get 100? and every time i win i get 100? and we play 1000 times
    and you always the guy with an RPG and i always the helicopter ok ?

    after that I?m a millionaire and you are "Poor"

    because in "Practice" a human with a RPG never hits the copter.

    only stupid people think a RPG play a military role against Helicopters.

    only a FIM-92 Stinger rocket do have a "Little" chance but not a RPG-

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG_%28Waffe%29

    really start to think if a RPG is effective no one will spend more money on a "Stinger"

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 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:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by Thatguy View Post
    Who fucking cares about the Irainians, if they don't like their government, they should deal with that problem internally.
    this works only if their own government is the problem. but what if the USA is the problem ?

    and this article is the prove the USA IS THE Problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowbac...ntelligence%29

    this means your way doesn't work. because the USA is the Cause of there own Government.

    as always you first have to fix the cause and after that you can fix the impact.

    Originally posted by Thatguy View Post
    Secondly, software isn't a political platform.
    this is wrong "FOSS/FreeSoftware" is a Political platform!

    only "Opensource" is not Political.

    as always you first have to fix the cause and after that you can fix the impact.

    Originally posted by Thatguy View Post
    Its just software, and its bound by embargos and law regarding trade limitations.
    just tell my why do have the GPLv3 so many political viewpoints ?

    anti "patent" anti "monopolism" strong limited "Capitalism" a strong social point...

    many microsoft fanboys call this "Communism"

    Originally posted by Thatguy View Post
    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.
    and this article is the prove the USA IS THE Problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowbac...ntelligence%29

    this means the iranians will never get a better government because the USA turning the world into "shit"

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
    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.

    LOL really this is stupid. a Lawyer is like a Developer he only starts to work if the "Manager" gives him a order to do so!
    i fix this for you:
    CEOs > Managers > Lawyer is a worker.

    just ask a manager about this tropic you NOOB!

    and hey i'm the CEO of my own company and a "Lawyer" is never higher than the CEO and if i get a Manager as a "right hand" the manager is higher than the "Lawyer"

    if the manager gets the order to fix this then the manager gives the order to a lawyer to fix this.



    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
    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.
    and again---> CEOs > Managers > Lawyer is a worker.

    he is a "Manager" he can Order a Lawyer to work on this problem.


    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Umm, wait. Who are they suing? Themselves? They are the ones who have licensed the code this way.
    quite appraisals are there to not to be sued

    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 View Post
    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:

Working...
X