AMD R600 LLVM Back-End Called For Inclusion

[Nedanfor]

"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...

[bridgman]

"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.

[Thatguy]

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

[smitty3268]

"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.

I hate to break it to you, but they've never cared about that. They have made it a point to license Mesa liberally precisely so that people can take their code and make proprietary drivers with it, etc. That's why they don't use the GPL.

[smitty3268]

he the "manager" can force lawyers to fix this in court.

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.

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.

amd do have a high chance to win this in court because: if the law is valid then its also valid without the licence agreement.

because LAW do not need: Licence agreement. because the "Law" is OVER the "Licence" because a licence is a agreement between 2 civilian party’s within the "LAW"

Umm, wait. Who are they suing? Themselves? They are the ones who have licensed the code this way.

[zxy_thf]

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.

I'd lilke to point out a more practical problem: both China and Russia resides in Contry Group D:1 accroading to Supplement No. 1 to Part 740S page 5 (Sorry for missing the link because I forget it )
In other words, the licence bans a quarter of Internet users (574 millions in 2,267 millions, see http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm), including me

[DaemonFC]

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:



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.

"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.

[Drago]

Hell Q, what do you want Bridgman to do about this. It is not up to him. The system is fucked up, especially in US. And this is not just about export laws. I am most worried about patent system of theirs. I am glad that AMD released code early, and I hope it would be merged with LLVM project soon. Big shouts to every one at AMD. Thanks.

[darkbasic]

Your just stupid.

No, he is just a troll (ok, maybe a stupid one).

[Thatguy]

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!




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




"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.



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!

Just shut the fuck up already. they are bound by laws governing corporations and are required to take a great many legal steps becuase of that. due diligence and negligence come to mind.

so deal with it and move on with your life. Its no racism. Your just stupid.