Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD R600 LLVM Back-End Called For Inclusion

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

  • 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:


  • 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:

Working...
X