Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD R600 LLVM Back-End Called For Inclusion

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

  • bridgman
    replied
    Originally posted by DaemonFC View Post
    Then you shouldn't have a problem with removing the parts that give you the right to "send ninja assassins to my house."
    Already done AFAIK. If you see anything about ninjas in the license agreement let me know and I'll take it back to legal.

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    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.
    I don't know what will happen. A whole pile of lawyers feel that standard license text *is* open source compatible... as I said, we just wanted to get the code out in public quickly so went with the standard license until we at least knew where the code was going to end up. We were initially thinking it would fetch up in clover or mesa but current thinking is llvm.

    Leave a comment:


  • DaemonFC
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    It happens. AFAIK *we* don't have to send the ninja assassins to your house though...
    Then you shouldn't have a problem with removing the parts that give you the right to "send ninja assassins to my house."

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    It happens. AFAIK *we* don't have to send the ninja assassins to your house though...

    Leave a comment:


  • DaemonFC
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    I believe section 5 says "remind them that they are required to obey the law", not "urge", "suggest", "request" or "ask nicely"...

    Anyways, not sure if you're a lawyer but I'm definitely not, so we probably won't be able to close this here.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DaemonFC
    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.
    Oh dammit, wouldn't you know it? He told me he wouldn't and then he did it. Fuck. Oh well....
    Last edited by DaemonFC; 03-27-2012, 02:17 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    Originally posted by DaemonFC View Post
    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.
    I believe section 5 says "remind them that they are required to obey the law", not "urge", "suggest", "request" or "ask nicely"...

    Anyways, not sure if you're a lawyer but I'm definitely not, so we probably won't be able to close this here.

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    Originally posted by DaemonFC View Post
    Now if I give a copy to someone in Canada, he's violating AMD's copyrights if he turns around to give a copy to someone in a country the US government doesn't like, even though the export restrictions themselves might not be the law in Canada.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DaemonFC
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    Right. Section 5.

    Some countries, including the United States, have export restrictions for certain types of software. An OSD-conformant license may warn licensees of applicable restrictions and remind them that they are obliged to obey the law; however, it may not incorporate such restrictions itself.
    Which is, EXACTLY what your license tries to do. And I quote...

    // 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?
    Last edited by DaemonFC; 03-27-2012, 02:13 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    Check out section 5 :

    http://www.opensource.org/osd.html

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X