Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 76

Thread: AMD R600 LLVM Back-End Called For Inclusion

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thatguy View Post
    Who fucking cares about the Irainians, if they don't like their government, they should deal with that problem internally.
    this works only if their own government is the problem. but what if the USA is the problem ?

    and this article is the prove the USA IS THE Problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowbac...ntelligence%29

    this means your way doesn't work. because the USA is the Cause of there own Government.

    as always you first have to fix the cause and after that you can fix the impact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thatguy View Post
    Secondly, software isn't a political platform.
    this is wrong "FOSS/FreeSoftware" is a Political platform!

    only "Opensource" is not Political.

    as always you first have to fix the cause and after that you can fix the impact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thatguy View Post
    Its just software, and its bound by embargos and law regarding trade limitations.
    just tell my why do have the GPLv3 so many political viewpoints ?

    anti "patent" anti "monopolism" strong limited "Capitalism" a strong social point...

    many microsoft fanboys call this "Communism"

    Quote Originally Posted by Thatguy View Post
    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.
    and this article is the prove the USA IS THE Problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowbac...ntelligence%29

    this means the iranians will never get a better government because the USA turning the world into "shit"

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    52

    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.
    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...

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,929

    Default

    Are people seriously discussing whether the modified BSD license (the Jimenez MLAA one, with the attribution clause) is a Free Software license?

    The fact that you're not allowed to use open source together with AMD GPUs in Russia and China is the REAL problem, not MLAA. While I don't expect AMD to go around suing Linux users in China for copyright infringement and believe Bridgman that they were forced to put that there to avoid US governmental sanctions, I do wish that a better way of handling this is introduced.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,458

    Default

    Yeah, we're arguing about MLAA license (it seems free to me) and also about whether the shaped charge on an RPG (which can punch through the armour on most tanks) can take down an armoured helicopter gunship (of course it can).

    The llvm license discussion seems to have gone off the rails again. I went back and checked the license text just to be sure...

    IT DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN'T SHIP TO RUSSIA AND CHINA PERIOD, it just says that you can't export to some countries unless you have an export license *or* one of the standard license exceptions applies (I believe the latter is the case for the llvm backend code but I am not a lawyer and definitely not *your* lawyer ), and that you can't export the code to those countries if it is controlled under the export regs or if you combine it with other stuff such that the result is controlled under the export regs (duh !). That is just standard US export law, very similar to the export laws in 40+ other countries. Look up the Wassenaar Arrangement if you want an idea of how all these countries align their regs.

    The default license says "here it is, you can do whatever you want with it, but you are responsible for thinking about how export laws apply, and here are a couple of examples in case you don't know what we're talking about". That is the standard license text, and using it is the fastest way to get something into public view.

    If we want to release something under a less restrictive license like X11 or UIUC, we basically have to go through the export laws ourselves, determine what export category the code falls into, obtain export licenses ourselves if required, basically taking on more of the export worries ourselves. Doing that is time consuming, expensive, and means we need to set up a bunch of internal processes to make sure that we don't go outside the dotted lines for that export category in future.
    Last edited by bridgman; 03-28-2012 at 12:53 PM.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    and also about whether the shaped charge on an RPG (which can punch through the armour on most tanks) can take down an armoured helicopter gunship (of course it can).
    clueless at work.... we make a deal we "Simulate" this in a professional military simulator like OFP/ARMA2/VBS1/VBS2
    and everytime you win you get 100 and every time i win i get 100 and we play 1000 times
    and you always the guy with an RPG and i always the helicopter ok ?

    after that Im a millionaire and you are "Poor"

    because in "Practice" a human with a RPG never hits the copter.

    only stupid people think a RPG play a military role against Helicopters.

    only a FIM-92 Stinger rocket do have a "Little" chance but not a RPG-

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG_%28Waffe%29

    really start to think if a RPG is effective no one will spend more money on a "Stinger"

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    and also about whether the shaped charge on an RPG (which can punch through the armour on most tanks) can take down an armoured helicopter gunship (of course it can).
    and even a ""Stinger"" do not have any chance against a modern "Helicopter" Weapon system in a military situation

    because: thermal imaging camera Guided automatic annihilation cannon
    this means the "Gun" shots automatic on all Thermal dots in full fighting range 2000-3000m

    this means all humans are Death instantly in a single flight over a area

    and even a human can shot the rocket the rocket never hit the target because all "modern" copters do have a automatic "Phalanx CIWS" like anti rocket system.

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

    this means: only naive humans think humans can fight with a RPG or Stinger against modern Weapon systems.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nedanfor View Post
    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...
    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.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    Yeah, we're arguing about MLAA license (it seems free to me) and also about whether the shaped charge on an RPG (which can punch through the armour on most tanks) can take down an armoured helicopter gunship (of course it can).

    The llvm license discussion seems to have gone off the rails again. I went back and checked the license text just to be sure...

    IT DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN'T SHIP TO RUSSIA AND CHINA PERIOD, it just says that you can't export to some countries unless you have an export license *or* one of the standard license exceptions applies (I believe the latter is the case for the llvm backend code but I am not a lawyer and definitely not *your* lawyer ), and that you can't export the code to those countries if it is controlled under the export regs or if you combine it with other stuff such that the result is controlled under the export regs (duh !). That is just standard US export law, very similar to the export laws in 40+ other countries. Look up the Wassenaar Arrangement if you want an idea of how all these countries align their regs.

    The default license says "here it is, you can do whatever you want with it, but you are responsible for thinking about how export laws apply, and here are a couple of examples in case you don't know what we're talking about". That is the standard license text, and using it is the fastest way to get something into public view.

    If we want to release something under a less restrictive license like X11 or UIUC, we basically have to go through the export laws ourselves, determine what export category the code falls into, obtain export licenses ourselves if required, basically taking on more of the export worries ourselves. Doing that is time consuming, expensive, and means we need to set up a bunch of internal processes to make sure that we don't go outside the dotted lines for that export category in future.
    So why does AMD have to abuse copyright law to tell me I can't do something that's illegal?

    Maybe you should throw in the "You are not allowed to kill people or double park" clause just to make sure you didn't miss anything? It's entirely outside of the scope of a copyright license to try to enforce criminal law. Leave it to the government to do their own damned dirty work.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,458

    Default

    What aspect of copyright law do you think this license abuses ?

    The difference between laws for export and those for murder and double-parking is that the former laws require "closing the loop" with whoever receives the materials under most conditions while (AFAIK) the latter laws do not. If you check the actual EARs this will become more clear :

    http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.htm

    Click on "Export Administration Regulations" on the left hand side. Most industrial countries have similar laws.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    What aspect of copyright law do you think this license abuses ?

    The difference between laws for export and those for murder and double-parking is that the former laws require "closing the loop" with whoever receives the materials under most conditions while (AFAIK) the latter laws do not. If you check the actual EARs this will become more clear :

    http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.htm

    Click on "Export Administration Regulations" on the left hand side. Most industrial countries have similar laws.
    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.

Posting Permissions

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