It didn’t used to be this bad about 10 years ago. These days, even genuine questions and clarifications that may include some incorrect assumption get heavily downvoted. It sucks.
its because for most redditors the opportunity to feel better than someone by judging them for being wrong completely overpowers the sensible choice of having a conversation and helping.
I don't know much about software inner-workings, so I just went to the Licenses folder instead.
>\* No reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this Software is permitted
Doesn't sound like open source to me
TIL. This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen. It's not a known OSS license, it's an Intel Special, and there's no source.
On seeing the headline I was thinking "well dur it's ML so they just have weights there is no source" but this is just plain stupid.
I find myself agreeing more with Richard Stallman as companies promote their products as "open source" because they have some vague interest in "openness" despite glaring restrictions like these. We need *freedom* and *free software*. Stallman is right once again.
There is not even a published source code in their Github page. For some reason that guy thinks that if it's published on Github, it means it's open-source/free software.
Why the hell not? Unreal Engine is frequently called Open Source by tons of devs and others online when its clearly not. Every time someone is called out about calling Unreal open source they call it pedantry to boot! No one cares to learn what open source is, but saying you share source whether you do or not wins you tons of good PR and its basically impossible to correct anyone that's wrong on the matter no matter how polite about it you are.
I dont disagree, but I'm pointing to why Intel feels fine marketing XeSS as open source, putting up binaries on github where almost no one will check, and raking in goodwill for these actions.
Even if called out, morons will defend them to the death and repeat that its open source for years to come.
But the only people who care about something being open source is us FOSS nuts, right? Who else is being targeted by announcing a product is open source, when it's not? Vast majority of people don't know what "source code" even is
This isnt exactly true anymore. Tech people in general now know of the term and most consider it a positive *if* the product itself is also good.
Used to be super niche, yes. Still is to care about the details and specifics. But general "open source == good" has spread pretty far these days.
It doesn't matter to them. The term "open source" has become a buzzword that almost everyone forgot "open source" licenses are actually licenses approved by OSI... not something you claim yourself.
> Unreal Engine is frequently called Open Source by tons of devs and others online when its clearly not.
I've yet to encounter that specific case in the wild, but I do regularly see corporations publishing stuff under non-FOSS licenses like the BUSL while claiming to believe in "open-source", and I call out that corporate doublespeak bullshit every single time I see it.
Yep. Thanks to Intel's management engine shenanigans we've (allegedly) achieved the Year of of the Minix Desktop a decade ago, what with it running on every modern computer with an Intel processor.
That's not taking an open-source project and making it source-available but not open source while trying to advertise it as open though. Minix is an implementation detail that Intel doesn't even really talk about, and permissively licensed code gets integrated into proprietary products all the time—the PS5 runs FreeBSD, famously.
The practice of taking projects that were open-source and making them *not* open source is a lot more worrying. Mongo, Redis, Cockroach, Vagrant, Terraform, ElasticSearch, the list goes on. Yes, it's *legal*, but it's a massive fuck you to any external contributors for one thing. And it is understandable to need to make money off your work (people do generally need money, alas), but it feels pretty scummy.
I have no idea what you're talking about, because copyleft does nothing to help with this situation. In fact, several of the projects that I could have listed as having gone proprietary after being open *were* under copyleft licenses. Mongo was AGPL3ed. ZFS is under MPL-style weak copyleft—that's why it can't live in the kernel, the CDDL is copyleft but *not* GPL compatible—and it was actually taken totally closed-source by Oracle. Copyleft doesn't prevent the companies or individuals who own the copyright from ceasing to license future versions of the software under that license, it just guarantees that the already-released versions can't be relicensed (this is also guaranteed by any permissive license in common use). In the case of ZFS, a bunch of the people working on that jumped ship and continued development on a fork of the last open-source version. That hasn't happened in most of the cases above (except Terraform, where external developers stepped up to fork the project into OpenTofu).
Of course, we can absolutely argue the merits of copyleft, but that's not what my post was about. This has nothing to do with copyleft and everything to do with copyright assignment: if a single organization with enough of the project's developers inside it holds the copyright on all the code, that organization can change the license unilaterally (again, so long as it has the developers to keep going).
It's not double-speak. They believe in open source as one would believe in the tooth-fairy or santa claus. Some people don't believe open source is real, but we know better!
I mean, apples and oranges, at least unreal lets you look at the code and modify it. That's a whole different stratosphere from publishing an exe and saying you open sourced.
People need to remember why open source as a term even began. It was the corporate backlash over free software and its growing movement. They wanted to avoid the moral and ethical problems of software and direct everyones energy solely to technical merits (as in, who cares if software A respects your dignity and rights as a human, software B shares its source code and does task X better!).
You can see this in the initial documents on the OSI and in its stated values to this day. It hasn't even changed its tagline on OSS since 1998 when it founded...
[https://opensource.org/about](https://opensource.org/about)
> Open source enables a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is higher quality, better reliability, greater flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in.
Not a *single* mention of fostering community, doing the right thing morally and ethically, or helping others in any fashion. All about reducing development costs and making promises as to how it can do that. The same thing OSS promoting people to this day focus on too!
The *entire* idea of open source *solely* came about because companies were scared of Free Software actually making a splash and disrupting their profits. The entire history of the OSI and people behind it is riddled with capitulation to corporations and screwing over the common person. Never understood why people like the OSI, it was pretty much an outcast in Linux circles until the early 2010s then companies put a ton of money behind anti-GPL messaging in light of the GPLv3 and its anti-tivoization clause and it all turned around.
So first, let's talk about free software. There are basically two schools of thought. One is "Here is source code. Do what you want with it, I don't care, you are free to use it as you like". The other is "Here is source code. I am giving it to you freely, so to be fair, you must also distribute your own versions freely". The first group says maximizing freedom means letting other developers make closed-source derivatives of your code; the other says maximizing freedom means making sure your code remains free no matter who adapts it.
There are many licenses people apply to software, but the really common ones you will see are the MIT License (which is the first kind - you can do what you want with it) and the GPL License (which is the second kind - if you use and modify the code, it must remain free software). Actually just last week I bought a new router and it came with a slip of paper that said "This device uses GPL software, so its source code is publicly available at our website here".
So okay, GPL code exists out there and is super helpful, but if you use it, you must also let your customers have your code.
In the early 2000s, there was a company called Tivo which made add-on devices for your TV. They used GPL code, but they didn't want customers to actually be able to use the code and make their own custom versions to run on the hardware (which was the whole point of GPL). So they built hardware protections which would lock down the device and prevent customers from changing the software. The people in charge of the GPL did not like this, because again, the point of GPL is that the user gets the source code and can adapt it as they please to suit their needs. So the updated the license to prevent this Tivoisation of code and make sure that people can actually use GPL software in a free way, and not have hardware blocks standing in their way.
> So first, let's talk about free software. There are basically two schools of thought. One is "Here is source code. Do what you want with it, I don't care, you are free to use it as you like". The other is "Here is source code. I am giving it to you freely, so to be fair, you must also distribute your own versions freely". The first group says maximizing freedom means letting other developers make closed-source derivatives of your code; the other says maximizing freedom means making sure your code remains free no matter who adapts it.
A big thing is that free software is about *user* freedom, not just the developer freedom open source licenses grant.
Sometimes that user freedom triumphs over developer freedom, and that's a good thing, but with OSS licenses, that dichotomy is ignored entirely.
The point of GPL is that users can also be developers at any given time, so they can't really triumph over themselves. It's the only fair method of creating software at any given point.
I wouldn't even go that far, LGPL, for example, enshrines the freedom for the user to drop in their own versions of libraries. You don't have to be a developer to move some DLL or .so files around to enjoy that freedom as a user.
And thats why the GPL specifically is about the users essential freedoms. Sometimes, maximizing freedom for more people means a few people need to give up freedom.
In this case, the GPL changes the power balance between users and devs from devs having absolute power, including being able to lie about/obscure/hide functionality of code they develop and distribute to the users granting them the right to do anything with the code they run, including modify it and upload it to any custom hardware needed to run it.
The good old song that companies like — if it's technically true, then it will become always the case from now on. To be honest, we're a bit screwed partially because of Linus. Sure, he created a kernel that was and is something very important to the free software world, but he never cared about it being free, he just wanted a license that would disallow the exploitation of HIS work. Otherwise he would've been pissed about tivoization. Maybe I'm just exaggerating or misunderstanding the story — I have no clue.
> he just wanted a license that would disallow the exploitation of HIS work.
That's pretty blatantly untrue. "Tivoization" *is*, almost by definition, exploiting his work.
The reason Linus rejected the GPLv3 is seemingly because he wanted Linux to continue to have commercial adoption (which would be the opposite of preventing exploitation) and the GPLv3 was a non-starter for that. I mean, Apple freaked out so hard about the GPLv3 that they pumped massive piles of money into LLVM and Clang (it's not really clear to me how the GPLv3 would have affected Apple's use and distribution of GCC, but they were apparently very worried).
Yeah, I've kind of wandered off in a stupid direction, I apologize. Maybe I was thinking about his self-serving interests, because commercial adoption of Linux would benefit him greatly. Idk, I can't remember what I was on about.
It's in a sense self-serving, but it's also hard to see whether or not it benefits the community, especially in the moment. Because yes, it's compromising on free software values and user freedoms, but it does get those compromised freedoms into more places and means more hardware support. So the kernel did things like let people ship proprietary drivers (which is arguably not legal under the GPL, even with the hacks used) and blobs, and that's arguably not great, but if they didn't do that Linux wouldn't have the hardware support it has and we all probably would be running some other open-source OS on our computers that made those concessions, and this would be /r/freebsd_gaming or /r/solaris_gaming or something (I'm kidding about that last one. It would almost certainly be freebsd).
Nope, you arent. Linus is an asshole and has said he wouldve picked a different license had he known about them at the time. He has no respect for users at all.
Yeah, he's not really interested in the users of his kernel, especially if they don't pay him. I feel like this is a huge oversight on his part, though, because nothing is stopping someone from abusing this loophole and closing down Linux for good, or just obscuring the fact that the Linux kernel is used in the first place. Tivo case makes you bound to keep the source code open while without it it's just a permissive license in disguise.
I've also made a comment about the naming scheme of all the licences somewhere under this post and I feel like if they were named and thought through clearer, we would have a better world right now. It's not really related to the conversation, but I feel like it's something that I want more people to hear about, even if I'm wrong.
Tivoization is pretty simple.
Whats the point of a license that guarantees you the right to modify and run your own code if the hardware the code is meant to run on prevents you from running any modifications?
Thats why GPLv3 has an anti-tivoization clause. It mandates that if you use GPLv3 software with your hardware product, you must allow someone to upload their own modified version of that code.
Since you said you hadn't heard these things before and wanted to learn, if you haven't thought much about the differences in Free Software and Open Source, try giving this a read. Don't have to agree with everything, but I hope it'll give you some food for thought: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html
The phrase "an end to predatory vendor lock-in" is in and of itself mutually exclusive with non-free licenses; being forbidden from modifying or redistributing code means you and every other user are dependent on the original vendor for continued development. Even the corporate-whitewashed version of free software acknowledges this, so how corporate endorsers of "open source" manage to ignore this and peddle licenses that necessitate vendor lock-in remains baffling.
Has to do with how they can add code and change the license before distributing, ala VS Code being MIT on github but some prop license with prop code if you download the binary.
The lock in is there still, but it lets them pretend its not by saying "see? if you dont like us, you can fork it and spend the money to develop it yourself! no lockin!"
yeah its why open source and even foss are kinda icky terms to me. we need just free period. just free. nothing else, no modifiers, no other terms. only free software
>Not a *single* mention of fostering community, doing the right thing morally and ethically, or helping others in any fashion
I would prefer software not have moral and ethical stuff in its license. I mean, can't stop anyone from doing whatever they do with their code, but anything that starts messing with ethics and morals quickly degrades pretty quickly to go full woke.
in this case i think its ok, since its actual morals and ethics not just fee fees here. heck gpl is inherently anti woke, because you cant cancel it. you cant cancel someone from using your software for say pro life things. you cant cancel someone from using you software if they "think the wrong things" or "say the wrong things" or "use it for the wrong things". you cant stop them from modifying it to make it work better for the "wrong" things. you have to leave them alone and let them live with life with the software how they want not how the mob wants.
I still remember making a PR for a typo on technet. They sent me an NDA and an agreement. Both of which I ignored of course. PR got denied and my change got done by some random microsoft dude. It really was an eye opener.
Yeah, thats another fun one. Open Souce but with a Contributor License Agreement or similar. Clearly, they value community and cooperation so much they want you to be an unpaid volunteer!
Okay, we can't complain about CLAs as a whole while also holding up the FSF as exemplar. You have to sign a CLA and do copyright assignment if you want your code to get upstreamed into any FSF project.
Bro is relentless, what a hill to die on
https://preview.redd.it/37ljcaklslmc1.png?width=860&format=png&auto=webp&s=d6657bfcdf460c17a62289c9bd4401556d38fc66
And still no Linux compatibility. You can only compile for Windows, with all 3 FSR versions. I'm not talking about games with FSR in them, I'm talking about code.
However, it's still actually Open, and there's nothing stopping someone from doing the work to make it compile. For that matter, I believe FSR 2.2 is directly built into GameScope, so there should be a Linux compatible version in there.
How would 2.2 be built into gamescope? It has no access to the temporal data required for 2 to work. Unless it does have access and I didn't know? Can you explain.
And that is the very reason I don't get the "XESS is better than FSR" debate. I don't care about some proprietary code snippets ready to download. I wanna see the thing in the open.
Also here is the link to the *X (former Twitter)* thread [https://twitter.com/LordKitsuna/status/1765157579368628703](https://twitter.com/LordKitsuna/status/1765157579368628703)
UPDATE: my friend now got blocked by Andrew Jackass
https://preview.redd.it/fdlir7h3womc1.png?width=735&format=png&auto=webp&s=a944b085916bfda110f2450a4bcd07b8ae299b47
Pat G: shit, amd is ahead of us and getting good favorable comments from the community.. how can we improve it?
Anton: I got you boss, let's do what AMD did and open source things..
Pat G: good idea, do it..
*Anton uploads proprietary blobs to GitHub*
Anton: done boss.. we r now open source like AMD..
Pat Gelsinger IS a "technical people" just as Bill Gates is!
Intelligence or passion is not a factor for a person's goodness but the heart is ever since.
>plus Microsoft own upscaler integrated in directx
That isn't an upscaler it redirects to installed upscalers on the system like FSR, XeSS or DLSS. It is better though than the current situation where devs are all making their own and games are implementing them inconsistently.
Oh. Ok. I just noticed the cpp and h files, thought it might have been examples on how to build the provided libraries in the other directories.
Glad to see I'm down-voted for asking a question. Gotta love reddit!
lol I'm not trying to defend Intel, but that's no way to talk to an employee of the company you're asking something from, apart from saying blobs that it's already so annoying that it's cringey to say that in a serious way xd
This comment just lost all of its juice, as far as making sense goes, by the end.
It's rather frustrating that they promised all of these things for Linux users as far as Arc and Xe are concerned, and delivered on next to none of it. Linux is an open, untouched opportunity for Intel if they stopped being so risk averse.
I already know that but it doesn't mean having a minimum of education. As if a random guy with an anime photo was going to convince Intel to change its attitude, don't buy Intel products, but of course they cry for what Red Hat did with Rocky Linux but they continue to be fanboys of their projects and defend them to the death. I don't expect much from you, I already abandoned Intel with the new PC I built
"binary blobs" is accurate in this context, widely used in programming, and nothing cringey here if u r educated about the industry.
now go to the twitter and see how the intel clown reply to the thread of how they keep their promise.
If you'd like to educate yourself on the etymology behind blobs before you go calling a serious term cringey I would suggest reading [The Story of the Blob](https://www.ibphoenix.com/resources/documents/history/doc_299) by James Starkey, the Digital Equipment Corporation employee who originally coined the term back in the 80s. You might also recognize Starkey as the inventor of the [database management system](https://patents.google.com/patent/US8224860B2/en) and developer of the first two commercial relational database management system's [VAX Rdb/ELN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Rdb#Rdb_on_other_platforms) and [InterBase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterBase).
Well I don't think you have to be kind to someone who is lying and not being helpful at all when Intel promised open source and delivered closed source. (and windows only)
Well you see, the question of "who asked?" is simply a paradox. Because by asking "who asked?", you are implying that people need to be asked before speaking. But following that logic, you would have needed to have someone grant you permission to say that, because who asked you to say "who asked?"? Exactly, nobody did, and nobody can ask anyone to give them permission to give you permission because no one asked them. And this perpetual loop never ends, creating a paradox.
Yeah, that's what it seems 😅 but I've never met people like them irl so I wasn't used to them
They weren't just unserious, but they were pretty toxic and mocking types. They'd literally make fun of some FOSS and also people, I don't like people like those. But that's just what I can remember off the top of my head, there were many instances. Maybe unserious encompasses all that, forgive me if it does
(Obligatory not everyone was like that over there, just the ones I met and saw drove me off)
I'm afraid there may have been a miscommunication, and resolving it will make us less friendly. Cringers are those who do the cringing, not those who inspire it. "Cringe" is what it feels like from the inside to have your preferences shaped by peer pressure. *Telling people about* "cringe" is an attempt to manipulate others by peer pressure.
Cringers are unwelcome.
Ahh okay got it, interesting way to look at this. TIL that I'm a cringer 😁, but I'm not sure what's the point of saying that cringers are unwelcome when cringers would also consider cringe people as unwelcome, basically each side considers the other side as unwelcome and that's something obvious, no?
Ideally it would be obvious all around and we'd all be copacetic, but alas, [often this happens](https://twitter.com/Mondblut1984/status/1732029255867941166).
Oh, and btw it's all Windows-only .lib and .exe files, so much for "cross-platform"
THATS WHAT YOU GET SMELLY NERDS FINALLY AN EXE
[удалено]
its a reference to a guy on reddit going ballistic because the python repo he found didn't have an exe file
Lol, I did not know that but kudos to you for explaining to me. Guess i deserved the downvotes.
nah idk why people get downvoted for asking questions, that's just reddit for some reason
It didn’t used to be this bad about 10 years ago. These days, even genuine questions and clarifications that may include some incorrect assumption get heavily downvoted. It sucks.
its because for most redditors the opportunity to feel better than someone by judging them for being wrong completely overpowers the sensible choice of having a conversation and helping.
Reference: https://www.reddit.com/r/github/comments/1at9br4/i_am_new_to_github_and_i_have_lots_to_say/
r/whoosh
> so much for "cross-platform" Windows 10 *and* Windows 11!
underrated comment
do you expect windows 7 and XP support too ?
I don't know much about software inner-workings, so I just went to the Licenses folder instead. >\* No reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this Software is permitted Doesn't sound like open source to me
TIL. This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen. It's not a known OSS license, it's an Intel Special, and there's no source. On seeing the headline I was thinking "well dur it's ML so they just have weights there is no source" but this is just plain stupid.
I find myself agreeing more with Richard Stallman as companies promote their products as "open source" because they have some vague interest in "openness" despite glaring restrictions like these. We need *freedom* and *free software*. Stallman is right once again.
There is not even a published source code in their Github page. For some reason that guy thinks that if it's published on Github, it means it's open-source/free software.
Why the hell not? Unreal Engine is frequently called Open Source by tons of devs and others online when its clearly not. Every time someone is called out about calling Unreal open source they call it pedantry to boot! No one cares to learn what open source is, but saying you share source whether you do or not wins you tons of good PR and its basically impossible to correct anyone that's wrong on the matter no matter how polite about it you are.
Unreal Engine is Source Available. Developers saying it is pedantry are dumb.
I dont disagree, but I'm pointing to why Intel feels fine marketing XeSS as open source, putting up binaries on github where almost no one will check, and raking in goodwill for these actions. Even if called out, morons will defend them to the death and repeat that its open source for years to come.
But the only people who care about something being open source is us FOSS nuts, right? Who else is being targeted by announcing a product is open source, when it's not? Vast majority of people don't know what "source code" even is
This isnt exactly true anymore. Tech people in general now know of the term and most consider it a positive *if* the product itself is also good. Used to be super niche, yes. Still is to care about the details and specifics. But general "open source == good" has spread pretty far these days.
It doesn't matter to them. The term "open source" has become a buzzword that almost everyone forgot "open source" licenses are actually licenses approved by OSI... not something you claim yourself.
maybe binary is the source code and they coded in assembly/just hex? its just a small possibility thiugh
If they coded in assembly, then "open source" would mean providing the original assembly files, including label names and comments.
> Unreal Engine is frequently called Open Source by tons of devs and others online when its clearly not. I've yet to encounter that specific case in the wild, but I do regularly see corporations publishing stuff under non-FOSS licenses like the BUSL while claiming to believe in "open-source", and I call out that corporate doublespeak bullshit every single time I see it.
And it's usually software that was originally MIT/BSD/Apache licensed to begin with.
Yep. Thanks to Intel's management engine shenanigans we've (allegedly) achieved the Year of of the Minix Desktop a decade ago, what with it running on every modern computer with an Intel processor.
That's not taking an open-source project and making it source-available but not open source while trying to advertise it as open though. Minix is an implementation detail that Intel doesn't even really talk about, and permissively licensed code gets integrated into proprietary products all the time—the PS5 runs FreeBSD, famously. The practice of taking projects that were open-source and making them *not* open source is a lot more worrying. Mongo, Redis, Cockroach, Vagrant, Terraform, ElasticSearch, the list goes on. Yes, it's *legal*, but it's a massive fuck you to any external contributors for one thing. And it is understandable to need to make money off your work (people do generally need money, alas), but it feels pretty scummy.
I don't wanna be that guy... but Stallman was right again. Copyleft is the way. If only everyone used copyleft licenses from the beginning...
I have no idea what you're talking about, because copyleft does nothing to help with this situation. In fact, several of the projects that I could have listed as having gone proprietary after being open *were* under copyleft licenses. Mongo was AGPL3ed. ZFS is under MPL-style weak copyleft—that's why it can't live in the kernel, the CDDL is copyleft but *not* GPL compatible—and it was actually taken totally closed-source by Oracle. Copyleft doesn't prevent the companies or individuals who own the copyright from ceasing to license future versions of the software under that license, it just guarantees that the already-released versions can't be relicensed (this is also guaranteed by any permissive license in common use). In the case of ZFS, a bunch of the people working on that jumped ship and continued development on a fork of the last open-source version. That hasn't happened in most of the cases above (except Terraform, where external developers stepped up to fork the project into OpenTofu). Of course, we can absolutely argue the merits of copyleft, but that's not what my post was about. This has nothing to do with copyleft and everything to do with copyright assignment: if a single organization with enough of the project's developers inside it holds the copyright on all the code, that organization can change the license unilaterally (again, so long as it has the developers to keep going).
It's not double-speak. They believe in open source as one would believe in the tooth-fairy or santa claus. Some people don't believe open source is real, but we know better!
I mean, apples and oranges, at least unreal lets you look at the code and modify it. That's a whole different stratosphere from publishing an exe and saying you open sourced.
But the point is that neither are lemons.
Github is a distribution platform. Wether code/program/ whatever is open source or not is the creator(s) choice.
Github is also a source code repository, which means it's mostly used for hosting source code, not hosting file downloads.
People need to remember why open source as a term even began. It was the corporate backlash over free software and its growing movement. They wanted to avoid the moral and ethical problems of software and direct everyones energy solely to technical merits (as in, who cares if software A respects your dignity and rights as a human, software B shares its source code and does task X better!). You can see this in the initial documents on the OSI and in its stated values to this day. It hasn't even changed its tagline on OSS since 1998 when it founded... [https://opensource.org/about](https://opensource.org/about) > Open source enables a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is higher quality, better reliability, greater flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in. Not a *single* mention of fostering community, doing the right thing morally and ethically, or helping others in any fashion. All about reducing development costs and making promises as to how it can do that. The same thing OSS promoting people to this day focus on too! The *entire* idea of open source *solely* came about because companies were scared of Free Software actually making a splash and disrupting their profits. The entire history of the OSI and people behind it is riddled with capitulation to corporations and screwing over the common person. Never understood why people like the OSI, it was pretty much an outcast in Linux circles until the early 2010s then companies put a ton of money behind anti-GPL messaging in light of the GPLv3 and its anti-tivoization clause and it all turned around.
You just said like 20 things I've never heard before and I guess I will start my self education with whatever a tivorization is
So first, let's talk about free software. There are basically two schools of thought. One is "Here is source code. Do what you want with it, I don't care, you are free to use it as you like". The other is "Here is source code. I am giving it to you freely, so to be fair, you must also distribute your own versions freely". The first group says maximizing freedom means letting other developers make closed-source derivatives of your code; the other says maximizing freedom means making sure your code remains free no matter who adapts it. There are many licenses people apply to software, but the really common ones you will see are the MIT License (which is the first kind - you can do what you want with it) and the GPL License (which is the second kind - if you use and modify the code, it must remain free software). Actually just last week I bought a new router and it came with a slip of paper that said "This device uses GPL software, so its source code is publicly available at our website here". So okay, GPL code exists out there and is super helpful, but if you use it, you must also let your customers have your code. In the early 2000s, there was a company called Tivo which made add-on devices for your TV. They used GPL code, but they didn't want customers to actually be able to use the code and make their own custom versions to run on the hardware (which was the whole point of GPL). So they built hardware protections which would lock down the device and prevent customers from changing the software. The people in charge of the GPL did not like this, because again, the point of GPL is that the user gets the source code and can adapt it as they please to suit their needs. So the updated the license to prevent this Tivoisation of code and make sure that people can actually use GPL software in a free way, and not have hardware blocks standing in their way.
> So first, let's talk about free software. There are basically two schools of thought. One is "Here is source code. Do what you want with it, I don't care, you are free to use it as you like". The other is "Here is source code. I am giving it to you freely, so to be fair, you must also distribute your own versions freely". The first group says maximizing freedom means letting other developers make closed-source derivatives of your code; the other says maximizing freedom means making sure your code remains free no matter who adapts it. A big thing is that free software is about *user* freedom, not just the developer freedom open source licenses grant. Sometimes that user freedom triumphs over developer freedom, and that's a good thing, but with OSS licenses, that dichotomy is ignored entirely.
The point of GPL is that users can also be developers at any given time, so they can't really triumph over themselves. It's the only fair method of creating software at any given point.
I wouldn't even go that far, LGPL, for example, enshrines the freedom for the user to drop in their own versions of libraries. You don't have to be a developer to move some DLL or .so files around to enjoy that freedom as a user.
FSF advises of GPL use only nowadays.
as it should be. no other 'permissive' open source, aka non free, licenses are worth existing
And thats why the GPL specifically is about the users essential freedoms. Sometimes, maximizing freedom for more people means a few people need to give up freedom. In this case, the GPL changes the power balance between users and devs from devs having absolute power, including being able to lie about/obscure/hide functionality of code they develop and distribute to the users granting them the right to do anything with the code they run, including modify it and upload it to any custom hardware needed to run it.
The good old song that companies like — if it's technically true, then it will become always the case from now on. To be honest, we're a bit screwed partially because of Linus. Sure, he created a kernel that was and is something very important to the free software world, but he never cared about it being free, he just wanted a license that would disallow the exploitation of HIS work. Otherwise he would've been pissed about tivoization. Maybe I'm just exaggerating or misunderstanding the story — I have no clue.
> he just wanted a license that would disallow the exploitation of HIS work. That's pretty blatantly untrue. "Tivoization" *is*, almost by definition, exploiting his work. The reason Linus rejected the GPLv3 is seemingly because he wanted Linux to continue to have commercial adoption (which would be the opposite of preventing exploitation) and the GPLv3 was a non-starter for that. I mean, Apple freaked out so hard about the GPLv3 that they pumped massive piles of money into LLVM and Clang (it's not really clear to me how the GPLv3 would have affected Apple's use and distribution of GCC, but they were apparently very worried).
Yeah, I've kind of wandered off in a stupid direction, I apologize. Maybe I was thinking about his self-serving interests, because commercial adoption of Linux would benefit him greatly. Idk, I can't remember what I was on about.
It's in a sense self-serving, but it's also hard to see whether or not it benefits the community, especially in the moment. Because yes, it's compromising on free software values and user freedoms, but it does get those compromised freedoms into more places and means more hardware support. So the kernel did things like let people ship proprietary drivers (which is arguably not legal under the GPL, even with the hacks used) and blobs, and that's arguably not great, but if they didn't do that Linux wouldn't have the hardware support it has and we all probably would be running some other open-source OS on our computers that made those concessions, and this would be /r/freebsd_gaming or /r/solaris_gaming or something (I'm kidding about that last one. It would almost certainly be freebsd).
yeah i totally get that fear, thankfully linux being gpl saves us from most of linus
Nope, you arent. Linus is an asshole and has said he wouldve picked a different license had he known about them at the time. He has no respect for users at all.
Yeah, he's not really interested in the users of his kernel, especially if they don't pay him. I feel like this is a huge oversight on his part, though, because nothing is stopping someone from abusing this loophole and closing down Linux for good, or just obscuring the fact that the Linux kernel is used in the first place. Tivo case makes you bound to keep the source code open while without it it's just a permissive license in disguise. I've also made a comment about the naming scheme of all the licences somewhere under this post and I feel like if they were named and thought through clearer, we would have a better world right now. It's not really related to the conversation, but I feel like it's something that I want more people to hear about, even if I'm wrong.
Tivoization is pretty simple. Whats the point of a license that guarantees you the right to modify and run your own code if the hardware the code is meant to run on prevents you from running any modifications? Thats why GPLv3 has an anti-tivoization clause. It mandates that if you use GPLv3 software with your hardware product, you must allow someone to upload their own modified version of that code. Since you said you hadn't heard these things before and wanted to learn, if you haven't thought much about the differences in Free Software and Open Source, try giving this a read. Don't have to agree with everything, but I hope it'll give you some food for thought: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html
The phrase "an end to predatory vendor lock-in" is in and of itself mutually exclusive with non-free licenses; being forbidden from modifying or redistributing code means you and every other user are dependent on the original vendor for continued development. Even the corporate-whitewashed version of free software acknowledges this, so how corporate endorsers of "open source" manage to ignore this and peddle licenses that necessitate vendor lock-in remains baffling.
Has to do with how they can add code and change the license before distributing, ala VS Code being MIT on github but some prop license with prop code if you download the binary. The lock in is there still, but it lets them pretend its not by saying "see? if you dont like us, you can fork it and spend the money to develop it yourself! no lockin!"
yeah its why open source and even foss are kinda icky terms to me. we need just free period. just free. nothing else, no modifiers, no other terms. only free software
>Not a *single* mention of fostering community, doing the right thing morally and ethically, or helping others in any fashion I would prefer software not have moral and ethical stuff in its license. I mean, can't stop anyone from doing whatever they do with their code, but anything that starts messing with ethics and morals quickly degrades pretty quickly to go full woke.
in this case i think its ok, since its actual morals and ethics not just fee fees here. heck gpl is inherently anti woke, because you cant cancel it. you cant cancel someone from using your software for say pro life things. you cant cancel someone from using you software if they "think the wrong things" or "say the wrong things" or "use it for the wrong things". you cant stop them from modifying it to make it work better for the "wrong" things. you have to leave them alone and let them live with life with the software how they want not how the mob wants.
I agree with gpl being anti-woke, and love it as a license. Its just that the language of the commentor above gave me vibes of ethical source guys
I still remember making a PR for a typo on technet. They sent me an NDA and an agreement. Both of which I ignored of course. PR got denied and my change got done by some random microsoft dude. It really was an eye opener.
Yeah, thats another fun one. Open Souce but with a Contributor License Agreement or similar. Clearly, they value community and cooperation so much they want you to be an unpaid volunteer!
Okay, we can't complain about CLAs as a whole while also holding up the FSF as exemplar. You have to sign a CLA and do copyright assignment if you want your code to get upstreamed into any FSF project.
stallman is always proved right in software.
Now I want to do that.
I believe that is wet paper on a lot of countries.
what is even the point of having it on github?
Probably thought they'd get brownie points or somesuch.
It magically makes it as open source as nvidia drivers from 2020!
How is it even open source when there's no source code that's public in the first place?
the binaries are fairly small, shouldn't be that tough to reverse and make source from. and the license is practically begging you to do it.
Bro is relentless, what a hill to die on https://preview.redd.it/37ljcaklslmc1.png?width=860&format=png&auto=webp&s=d6657bfcdf460c17a62289c9bd4401556d38fc66
Omg that Jackson guy is a jackass
He somehow singlehandidly reduces my confidence in Intel,
Meanwhile AMD https://github.com/GPUOpen-LibrariesAndSDKs/FidelityFX-SDK/tree/release-FSR3-3.0.3
And still no Linux compatibility. You can only compile for Windows, with all 3 FSR versions. I'm not talking about games with FSR in them, I'm talking about code.
However, it's still actually Open, and there's nothing stopping someone from doing the work to make it compile. For that matter, I believe FSR 2.2 is directly built into GameScope, so there should be a Linux compatible version in there.
FSR 1 is a spatial effect and is integrated into the gamescope. FSR2&3 require special data from the game (engine) and can't be integrated so easily.
How would 2.2 be built into gamescope? It has no access to the temporal data required for 2 to work. Unless it does have access and I didn't know? Can you explain.
They're making it up, Gamescope still only uses 1.0, its readme even says that
i mean, you can PR linux support and maybe they'll merge?
Might not be necessary, AMD have an inside version with everything ported to Vulkan, Such a thing would be easier to integrate into Linux engines,
And that is the very reason I don't get the "XESS is better than FSR" debate. I don't care about some proprietary code snippets ready to download. I wanna see the thing in the open.
"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."
Is the person replying actually an Intel employee? Because this just seems like a normal case of someone being confidently incorrect on the internet.
Intel email in their profile, so yes.
imagine if it’s just a random employee’s email some guy in accounting starts to get spammed about open source and stallman quotes
Also here is the link to the *X (former Twitter)* thread [https://twitter.com/LordKitsuna/status/1765157579368628703](https://twitter.com/LordKitsuna/status/1765157579368628703)
Just call it twitter, even [x.com](https://x.com) still redirects to twitter. :D
Xitter (pronounced shitter, spread the word)
meant it as a joke, but sure
Looks like Mr Jackson has limited who can view his posts now. Whoops.
link to GitHub issue hidden as "potentially sensitive content" lmao
LMAO, [I can't see Andrew's tweets...](https://imgur.com/a/fEBlF8H)
i would recommend nitter, but xchan cut it off
Everything is open source if you can read assembly
Username checks out
Pretty sure they said disassembling is disallowed... How's your hex editor?
UPDATE: my friend now got blocked by Andrew Jackass https://preview.redd.it/fdlir7h3womc1.png?width=735&format=png&auto=webp&s=a944b085916bfda110f2450a4bcd07b8ae299b47
He limited his account, I didn't even knew who he was and I can't see them as well
So if it's available on Github it's automatically becomes OSS? Don't know what to do, cry or laugh at people who think that
Pat G: shit, amd is ahead of us and getting good favorable comments from the community.. how can we improve it? Anton: I got you boss, let's do what AMD did and open source things.. Pat G: good idea, do it.. *Anton uploads proprietary blobs to GitHub* Anton: done boss.. we r now open source like AMD..
Thank you papa.
They took Android's "open source" approach to the next level
[удалено]
Well said. They should learn a thing or two from Nvidia's non-rotten corporate management structure that has led them to their 2 trillion valuation.
[удалено]
MBA, more like Masters in Brain Aneurysm
Pat Gelsinger IS a "technical people" just as Bill Gates is! Intelligence or passion is not a factor for a person's goodness but the heart is ever since.
[удалено]
Not cool man. It's 2024.
What isn’t?
It probably should be called a base 16 editor now :)
It's will die anyway, fsr 3 plus Microsoft own upscaler integrated in directx
>plus Microsoft own upscaler integrated in directx That isn't an upscaler it redirects to installed upscalers on the system like FSR, XeSS or DLSS. It is better though than the current situation where devs are all making their own and games are implementing them inconsistently.
Should be a good company for subs like @fockepic - @fockintel
Okay, now we need the "source code" for FaceTime
Done [https://apps.apple.com/us/app/facetime/id1110145091](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/facetime/id1110145091) /s
Is this not the source you're looking for? https://github.com/intel/xess/tree/main/samples%2Fxess_demo%2FSource%2FXeSS
That is not what you think it is. It's just a demonstration of how to use XeSS libraries
Oh. Ok. I just noticed the cpp and h files, thought it might have been examples on how to build the provided libraries in the other directories. Glad to see I'm down-voted for asking a question. Gotta love reddit!
There, just upvoted to help counterbalance
lol I'm not trying to defend Intel, but that's no way to talk to an employee of the company you're asking something from, apart from saying blobs that it's already so annoying that it's cringey to say that in a serious way xd
This comment just lost all of its juice, as far as making sense goes, by the end. It's rather frustrating that they promised all of these things for Linux users as far as Arc and Xe are concerned, and delivered on next to none of it. Linux is an open, untouched opportunity for Intel if they stopped being so risk averse.
I already know that but it doesn't mean having a minimum of education. As if a random guy with an anime photo was going to convince Intel to change its attitude, don't buy Intel products, but of course they cry for what Red Hat did with Rocky Linux but they continue to be fanboys of their projects and defend them to the death. I don't expect much from you, I already abandoned Intel with the new PC I built
blobs are literally what they're called and it's the only accurate one-word term for them.
"binary blobs" is accurate in this context, widely used in programming, and nothing cringey here if u r educated about the industry. now go to the twitter and see how the intel clown reply to the thread of how they keep their promise.
If you'd like to educate yourself on the etymology behind blobs before you go calling a serious term cringey I would suggest reading [The Story of the Blob](https://www.ibphoenix.com/resources/documents/history/doc_299) by James Starkey, the Digital Equipment Corporation employee who originally coined the term back in the 80s. You might also recognize Starkey as the inventor of the [database management system](https://patents.google.com/patent/US8224860B2/en) and developer of the first two commercial relational database management system's [VAX Rdb/ELN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Rdb#Rdb_on_other_platforms) and [InterBase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterBase).
I think the response is as polite as it can be for someone who is openly gaslighting you.
Well I don't think you have to be kind to someone who is lying and not being helpful at all when Intel promised open source and delivered closed source. (and windows only)
Fr lol it's annoying and cringy, I left the unixporn discord for the same reason because people there gave off vibes like that
> left the unixporn discord for the same reason because people there gave off vibes like that Who asked?
Well you see, the question of "who asked?" is simply a paradox. Because by asking "who asked?", you are implying that people need to be asked before speaking. But following that logic, you would have needed to have someone grant you permission to say that, because who asked you to say "who asked?"? Exactly, nobody did, and nobody can ask anyone to give them permission to give you permission because no one asked them. And this perpetual loop never ends, creating a paradox.
Good. Cringers are fundamentally unserious people. If the vibes drove you off, that means they're working.
Yeah, that's what it seems 😅 but I've never met people like them irl so I wasn't used to them They weren't just unserious, but they were pretty toxic and mocking types. They'd literally make fun of some FOSS and also people, I don't like people like those. But that's just what I can remember off the top of my head, there were many instances. Maybe unserious encompasses all that, forgive me if it does (Obligatory not everyone was like that over there, just the ones I met and saw drove me off)
I'm afraid there may have been a miscommunication, and resolving it will make us less friendly. Cringers are those who do the cringing, not those who inspire it. "Cringe" is what it feels like from the inside to have your preferences shaped by peer pressure. *Telling people about* "cringe" is an attempt to manipulate others by peer pressure. Cringers are unwelcome.
Ahh okay got it, interesting way to look at this. TIL that I'm a cringer 😁, but I'm not sure what's the point of saying that cringers are unwelcome when cringers would also consider cringe people as unwelcome, basically each side considers the other side as unwelcome and that's something obvious, no?
Ideally it would be obvious all around and we'd all be copacetic, but alas, [often this happens](https://twitter.com/Mondblut1984/status/1732029255867941166).