AMD R600 LLVM Back-End Called For Inclusion

[Nedanfor]

Saying you can only use it as part of Mesa does make it nonfree. It takes away my ability to use the software for any purpose, including putting it in other software.

I think you really misunderstood what is written in that license. You can use the code in your personal project, if you write in the binary this sentence:

+ * "Uses Jimenez's MLAA. Copyright (C) 2010 by Jorge Jimenez, Belen Masia,
+ * Jose I. Echevarria, Fernando Navarro and Diego Gutierrez."

I will try to explain to you why you can do anything with this piece of software.

+ * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
+ * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

So you have to simply follow two conditions.

+ * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
+ * this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

First condition like the first condition of 2-clause BSD license.

+ * 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."

Second condition like the second condition of 2-clause BSD license.

+ * Only for use in the Mesa project, this point 2 is filled by naming the
+ * technique Jimenez's MLAA in the Mesa config options.

If your project is the Mesa project, then you can fill the second condition in another way, if you want. Period. It's an exception. My first language is italian and my english skills aren't so good, but trust me, this is free open source software.

The second clause exceptions doesn't mean 'You can only use this code for Mesa', at least not in any language that I can understand.

PS. If you speak other languages, I can try to explain to you this through private messages.

[bridgman]

export laws are only for export but releasing open-source software is NOT A EXPORT!

for example "source-forge" the website if THEY upload this to "Iran" then the Export LAW hits.

but the Export LAW hit NOT if someone release open-source in the USA.

I'm guessing you haven't actually read the regs yet, right ?

It's *really* not as simple as you claim.

[Qaridarium]

I'm guessing you haven't actually read the regs yet, right ?

It's *really* not as simple as you claim.

it is so easy and if not the Constitutional Court is giving you right.

but yes its much cheaper to not fight in Court.

but "cheaper" do not mean this is "right"

[bridgman]

*bridgman has left the Q Continuum

[Qaridarium]

*bridgman has left the Q Continuum

LOL and only because the "Constitutional Court" gives you the "Final" answer of your Question.

sure to know it "Finally" is very expensive

this makes it simple for AMD Money weight more than "Right"

in doubt to the accused is obsolete now the new version is:

+++in doubt for the money+++

[DaemonFC]

*bridgman has left the Q Continuum

Bridgman and the lawyers that say I have to follow every possible export law in the world to use AMD software. This is a crock. No matter how you try to defend it, it will still be a crock. Can you just admit it's a total crock and fix the license?

I'm subject to two major sets of laws. US federal laws and Indiana state laws. I don't care what the law is anywhere else and I shouldn't have to. If I find a loophole in the law that lets me circumvent it to help someone, AMD shouldn't close it by misusing their copyright.

[pingufunkybeat]

Saying you can only use it as part of Mesa does make it nonfree.

The license says no such thing.

If you use it outside of Mesa, you get the standard modified BSD license.

If you use it inside Mesa, then you get a non-standard modified BSD license with relaxed attribution requirements.

Both cases are completely FSF-approved Free Software licenses. It's Free Software either way, and you can use it to your heart's desire.

[smitty3268]

LOL and only because the "Constitutional Court" gives you the "Final" answer of your Question.

You know that there's no such thing as the "Constitutional Court", right?

Oh wait, it's Q.

[Qaridarium]

You know that there's no such thing as the "Constitutional Court", right?

Oh wait, it's Q.

there is no other word for it. in german "Verfassungsgericht"

Verfassungsgericht=Constitutional Court its the highest Judicial review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review

"The United States Constitution does not explicitly establish the power of judicial review. Rather, the power of judicial review has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicia..._United_States

[smitty3268]

there is no other word for it. in german "Verfassungsgericht"

Verfassungsgericht=Constitutional Court its the highest Judicial review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review

"The United States Constitution does not explicitly establish the power of judicial review. Rather, the power of judicial review has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicia..._United_States

Wait, so Bridgman is supposed to fight American laws in a German court?

/confused