search for: tivoization

...at affects the decision. My gut (and I'm actually not sure if I exactly consider this a pro or a con personally) is that is sounds Stallman-esque to require backends to answer "yes" to "can I run the code coming out of the backend?". If you squint it is sort of like an anti-tivoization requirement, which would be a very ironic requirement for a BSD-licensed project. One example that personally convinces me that "can I run the code coming out of the backend?" should not be a requirement is the following: if Apple is willing to develop their mobile GPU backend(s?) upstre...

I''m trying to figure out what the software license would be for code (scaffolds, etc) generated by Rails. Basically, if I set up a Rails project, can or should I be able to claim copyright (and therefore have the ability to license under e.g. GPL) over the files generated by :- - The "rails" command that creates the initial tree of files - The output of "generate

On 19 July 2016 at 17:04, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Presumably if my out-of-tree backend was to be pushed to LLVM, it too would be considered experimental. Yes. Though, not all out-of-tree back-ends end up upstream for different reasons. A few basic rules to get accepted are if: * the target exists and can be easily purchased / emulated