It is open source? #206
Comments
|
Does this mean one can request the sourcecode even with legal support ;) ? |
|
Why is it no longer open source? Is it temporary, or you don't plan to open it up anymore? I hope it's not because of some console NDAs. |
|
Presumably MIT is meant to apply to the headers + samples? |
These commits try bumping the version up to 4.0, but they lack any kind of changelog, and most importantly, lack the sources. Author just removed sources, dumped some binaries leaving to at least one major regression, and somehow that got through These changes clearly haven't got any peer review and shouldn've have been applied in the first place. Let's just revert them. Fixes: GPUOpen-LibrariesAndSDKs#206 Fixes: GPUOpen-LibrariesAndSDKs#207 Signed-off-by: Konstantin Kharlamov <[email protected]>
These commits try bumping the version up to 4.0, but they lack any kind of changelog, and most importantly, lack the sources. Yeah, that does sound funny but this is for real: author just removed sources, dumped some binaries leading to at least one major regression, and somehow all of that got through. These changes clearly haven't got any peer review and shouldn've have been applied in the first place. Let's just revert them. Fixes: GPUOpen-LibrariesAndSDKs#206 Fixes: GPUOpen-LibrariesAndSDKs#207 Signed-off-by: Konstantin Kharlamov <[email protected]>
|
Hi guys, -Dmitry |
|
Thx @yozhijk great move ! |
|
@yozhijk I presume you meant NDA as opposed to SLA. |
|
Question is, how long will legal limbo last: |
So when will we see the source code of RadeonRays4 ? it's been almost a year since you promised to provide it .. |
I would argue about 7.5 months being "almost a year" ;) However, that being said, please be patient. The people replying here are developers, not the legal dept. We'll post an update when we can! |
Well, speaking of developers: if this project is even maintained, there's clearly something that could be done without waiting for legal team. Specifically, pull requests been piling up since 2018 year. Someone could review and accept them. That said, right now all PRs would clearly be in conflict because of the situation discussed. That could be worked around by first accepting #210 which reverts commits that brought those binaries, and then review and accept the rest of PRs. |
|
Btw, there is something to be said about the AMD development team. I leave this comment specifically for AMD devs, because you folks will need to have an internal talk on your team. Let's go back in time to July 2018. That was the time last commit was made to the repo. Then, some developer, let's call him Bob, decided to make another change to RadeonRays SDK. He finds some old private repo from before 2016 (in 2016 development moved to github), and makes a commit there. Why nobody noticed that? Do you even have a codereview? If he was explicitly asked to commit to the internal repo, why no one questioned that, didn't contact the legal team? And Bob wasn't the last dev who did that, there was a slew of others, and no one asked "why do we not use the Github repo, the development is been done there since 2016 year". Please folks, bring this up on the next internal meeting, because this looks pretty frustrating, what a team… |
|
It must be a shit show over there in AMD dev land. Product after product goes through this same cycle of release promising product to open source -> bugs & PR pile up which all get ignored -> product dies because there's no support. Why can't they get their act together? |
|
Closing since the source got published under an open source license. |
The page says that this is not open source, yet LICENSE.txt is MIT license. Please clear up on licensing.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: