Originally posted by bridgman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
AMD R600 LLVM Back-End Called For Inclusion
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by DaemonFC View PostIt's only licensed for use in Mesa. Outside of that, it has an obnoxious advertising clause that has to be used there.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by bridgman View Post(the BIS regs) or are you just saying "what would be nice if it were true" ?
AMD can """"not"""" be sentenced as guilty for another Mann's crime.
because of this its complete idiotic!
Originally posted by bridgman View PostQ, have you actually read the US export control laws
its like Adolf Hitler Enabling Act of 1933 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
anyway the USA do have such a law its called: "Catastrophic Emergency" right of disposal ""all federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations""
source: http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/25/25796/1.html
Originally posted by bridgman View PostExport 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.
AMD is innocent for another Mann?s crime.
if amd release this as pure BSD licence and another MANN send this to iran then the other man is guilty and not amd.
Originally posted by bridgman View PostAnyways, 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.
your inner mind: "Its open-source but not for Iranian people" this is just Racism
and Racism is never legitimate!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by bridgman View PostAnyways, 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.
Leave a comment:
-
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:
-
Originally posted by bridgman View PostI 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).
the export is not releasing a source-code in a BSD licence you can do it its not against the "Law"
the one who do download/upload it to iran does the crime not "AMD"
this means: the anti Iranian BSD licence is not an open-source licence.
because its only a opensource-lizence if the people can do a "crime" with the source code without violating "AMDs" copyright.
its more than Ironic you do violate AMD's copyright law if you do a crime LOL only complete stupid people think in this way!
if you kill a human(crime) you just give a SHIT about AMDs copyright!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DaemonFC View PostWell, 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:
-
its just Double Standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard
for an Iranian its not Open-source but for an US Citizen its open-source.
the US-Double Standard makes clear only US Citizen are "Humans" Iranians are "Animals"
and the US-Double Standard make sure the US people can wipe out innocent "Animals" in a mass-murdering act without any doubt and shame.
Prove: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_...a_and_Nagasaki
the US export restrictions on Open-source are just "Double Standard"
its like killing people in a war its fine and ok and brings profit for the US war industry only killing US Citizens are not OK.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Ansla View Postforcing 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.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: