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:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    (the BIS regs) or are you just saying "what would be nice if it were true" ?
    i say this because I know your "version" is Illegitimate.

    AMD can """"not"""" be sentenced as guilty for another Mann's crime.

    because of this its complete idiotic!


    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    Q, have you actually read the US export control laws
    just tell me: why should I read Illegitimate NAZI-666-America-666-NAZI 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 Post
    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.
    "Logic" is still valid and it doesn?t matter whatever the crazy US freaks write in a book Logic is still valid.

    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 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.
    sure you can always chance the license but your chose of license show the "inner" mind

    your inner mind: "Its open-source but not for Iranian people" this is just Racism

    and Racism is never legitimate!

    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:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    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 ).
    no that?s just a Lie and FUD! if a Iranian can not use the OpenSource/FreeSoftware without violate AMD's copyright then its just not Free-Software/Opensource software.

    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:


  • 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:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    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:


  • 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:

Working...
X