Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 76

Thread: AMD R600 LLVM Back-End Called For Inclusion

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darkbasic View Post
    No, he is just a troll (ok, maybe a stupid one).
    just make a Troll test:

    "Just shut the fuck up already."

    Personal defamation and insulting without any link to the tropic

    ok maybe I’m wrong and he is not a Troll now we come to the "Troll Cloaking himself as a valid writer":

    "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."

    bad try because: its not the question other company’s release BSD code without anti-Iran-parts and other company’s do not have problems with this. The law do not force you do make "Closed-source" or anti-iran-source the law only do make sure no company like Source-forge do a servive for Iranians and do not upload stuff to iran.

    but this is also for PURE BSD code and PURE GPL code without any anti-iran part in the License!

    because the LAW is LAW without "License- agreements"

    because of this he just write bullshit! (bullshit means: TROLL )


    "so deal with it"

    now more bullshit comes if i change the illegitimate LAW with Freedom of speech in Politics then I DEAL WITH IT°! )i just deal with it in a different way(

    "and move on with your life."

    another Personal defamation because its my chose how I life my life!

    "Its no racism."

    maybe not racism but "nation-defamation" and you do defamation on the Iranian people only because they are Iranians.

    wow this is soooo much better than racism.

    "Your just stupid. "

    another personal attack this is the prove he is a TROLL!!

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Russe, Bulgaria
    Posts
    500

    Default

    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.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drago View Post
    Hell Q, what do you want Bridgman to do about this. It is not up to him.
    He is just my "best" Friend and because of this I love to write many text to him.
    sure its not up to him. but this change nothing.
    he the "manager" can force lawyers to fix this in court.

    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"

    this means this "Special" Licence is bullshit.


    Quote Originally Posted by Drago View Post
    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.
    sure i'm happy about this to

    but the licence is still "bullshit" it just Double copy past the law into a licence and this is just bullshit because the LAW is for ALL code even pure BSD code. not only for the special-BSD fake code.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nedanfor View Post
    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.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Quote 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.
    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

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    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.
    Last edited by smitty3268; 03-28-2012 at 02:30 AM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaemonFC View Post
    "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.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    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

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaemonFC View Post
    "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.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    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.

    LOL really this is stupid. a Lawyer is like a Developer he only starts to work if the "Manager" gives him a order to do so!
    i fix this for you:
    CEOs > Managers > Lawyer is a worker.

    just ask a manager about this tropic you NOOB!

    and hey i'm the CEO of my own company and a "Lawyer" is never higher than the CEO and if i get a Manager as a "right hand" the manager is higher than the "Lawyer"

    if the manager gets the order to fix this then the manager gives the order to a lawyer to fix this.



    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    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.
    and again---> CEOs > Managers > Lawyer is a worker.

    he is a "Manager" he can Order a Lawyer to work on this problem.


    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Umm, wait. Who are they suing? Themselves? They are the ones who have licensed the code this way.
    quite appraisals are there to not to be sued

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •