AMD announces GPUOpen - Open Sourced Gaming Development

[D.P.]

GPUopen's license only requires the original license to be included in any derived work.they don't require any changes to be published and made open, and developers have no incentive to share their IP with competitors.


Heck, if TressFX really is superior to Hairworks then nothing stop Nvidia copying the code and including it as part of games works, and with never having to reference AMD.

 

[AlamoX]

I'm not saying AMD would do it, or at least not directly, it could be done through contracts or something.
But the code could be closed to Nvidia to prevent optimising if it is modified and the code isn't made available to Nvidia. You say that a studio couldn't keep it closed to a vendor, but that's exactly what people say happened with GameWorks. I believe devs could get access to that source code (maybe for a fee) but in the contract they signed to get it I believe it was stipulated they couldn't share it with AMD. Why couldn't AMD implement such a contract to prevent Nvidia access the altered TressFX source code?

Again, this is all a big hypothetical and in the past there doesn't seem to have been any evidence that AMD have done this sort of thing, except for rumours that it was part of the contract with AMD that Lichdom wouldn't allow Nvidia users to enable TressFX.
The point is that the only source code everyone has access to is the vanilla source code in GitHub. Any modifications may not be made visible to the community, like GameWorks. In this scenario the modified versions of TressFX that are actually used could have any number of changes in it, some which may favour one side over the other, on purpose.
No reason Nvidia couldn't come up with a contract allowing the use of GPUOpen effects in their TWIMTBP titles on the condition that the modified source code isn't made available to AMD. Nvidia could then send people in to help make changes that work better on Nvidia hardware in some way or unless certain driver optimisation are implemented specifically for that game.
TL;DR - Vanilla TressFX being open-source doesn't mean any modified version will be and thus the issues people have with GameWorks could also occur in the modified TressFX code. In theory.

*** Unless part of the licence agreement to use GPUOpen in the first place states that any modified versions must be available under the same licence. ***

Copyright (c) 2016 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. All rights reserved.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE.


from what i understand AMD can't add an agreement for eidos preventing Nvidia from seeing the code, they can even sublicense the software to nvidia.
the MIT licence is pretty straight forward.

 

[AlamoX]

GPUopen's license only requires the original license to be included in any derived work.they don't require any changes to be published and made open, and developers have no incentive to share their IP with competitors.


Heck, if TressFX really is superior to Hairworks then nothing stop Nvidia copying the code and including it as part of games works, and with never having to reference AMD.

no they actualy have to mention it , unless if they wanna hide it, but hiding stuff never works out well, ppl always finish by finding out.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

Copyright (c) 2016 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. All rights reserved.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE.


from what i understand AMD can't add an agreement for eidos preventing Nvidia from seeing the code, they can even sublicense the software to nvidia.

Not saying they could add an agreement to the licence for the software, but they could add it as a condition to the contract for AMD sponsoring the game.

As for the rest of the contract, I'm still not really clear on if they have to make the modified versions available under the same licence (i.e. that anyone can use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell the alter version of the code, such as PureHair). I'd read it that they don't, but...

 

[AlamoX]

Not saying they could add an agreement to the licence for the software, but they could add it as a condition to the contract for AMD sponsoring the game.

As for the rest of the contract, I'm still not really clear on if they have to make the modified versions available under the same licence (i.e. that anyone can use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell the alter version of the code, such as PureHair). I'd read it that they don't, but...

lol that would be called bribery not sponsoring , it's quite a stretch thou, i dont see why AMD would sponsor a game using their software, since the game will mention them anyway, they dont really have money to throw around, and when the studio have no obligation toward AMD, for sharing the code, it would be really interesting to see how a studio would explain his reason for not sharing it with a hardware vendor with about 80% install base, can you imagine Nvidia making an announcement ahead of game launch saying that the studio is preventing them from correctly optimising the game?
studios need hardware vendor not the other way around, there is plenty of fish in the sea, but there is only 3 vendors.
to be fair this hypothesis seem really unrealistic to me, but you never know, Intel did it to AMD so i can't really deny the possibility.
as far as i can see they dont have to make it available under the MIT licence, they can very well make it private and sell it, the important part is that AMD will be out of the equation, and the studios are responsible for all their actions.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM...including forum blame

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

That would make sense but that isn't how open source software works, if AMD put it out there license free then this is what they get. If AMD want to require developers to name AMD when they use GPUOpen then it is licensed softwre just like Gameworks, which you can get the source for as well.

It doesn't change the fact even at any level AMD PR and marketing who are being paid by the company to promote them didn't even release a statement (as I mentioned before) about the tech being used in a major game. It boggles me what mistakes AMD marketing makes.

How much effort does it take for them(even after bouncing back to higher ups and legal people) for them to just make a statement of a few lines?

 

[Final8y]

It doesn't change the fact even at any level AMD PR and marketing who are being paid by the company to promote them didn't even release a statement (as I mentioned before) about the tech being used in a major game. It boggles me what mistakes AMD marketing makes.

How much effort does it take for them(even after bouncing back to higher ups and legal people) for them to just make a statement of a few lines?

It should have been in the license that if any AMD tech is used then it must be mentioned, it was a silly decision to have that not stipulated.

 

[D.P.]

no they actualy have to mention it , unless if they wanna hide it, but hiding stuff never works out well, ppl always finish by finding out.

No, read the license. The only thing anyone has to do when using GPUooen is include the original license if redistributing.

 

[D.P.]

Not saying they could add an agreement to the licence for the software, but they could add it as a condition to the contract for AMD sponsoring the game.

As for the rest of the contract, I'm still not really clear on if they have to make the modified versions available under the same licence (i.e. that anyone can use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell the alter version of the code, such as PureHair). I'd read it that they don't, but...

They don't have to make any modified version available, which is why no modified version will appear in the public domain. If they do make a modified version available it can be under a new sub-license but the original AMD license text needs to be in there. The reason for that is basically AMD is wronged about liability and warranty issues, the only thing AMD is stating is any e can use GPUopen for free, do whatever they want with it, but it's entirely your responsibility. AMD don't want to be associated with hardware bowling up because you used TressFX.

That is a very nice and generous license, it is properly license free. But that means AMD can't make any demands on users of th code.

 

[humbug]

Typical AMD, lots of different ways to read up on it but actually finding where to get it is nearly impossible.

You'd think maybe on one of its blog stile webpages they would have a button labeled "DownLoad It Here" but no....

One information page leads to another and another and another...... at no point do they point you to where what they talk about actually is.

Its like their forums, needlessly complicated, nothing makes any ergonomic sense and you never find what you're actually looking for.

Who designed all this crap? its bad just shockingly bad.

Rules when trying to attract people to your products, keep it simple, less information is better, where to get the product should be obvious to your 85 year old grandmother, never under any circumstance embed and bury your product availability link's in your marketing.
Have only one dedicated master page to your product, it should contain a brief description, minimal marketing and clearly labeled direct links on where to get the product.
Think, peoples attention span is about 2 minutes, if you cannot grip them and make them take an interest in 1 minute you have lost them, if they don't feel comfortable navigating your site in 5 seconds you have lost them, people should know where they are and where key points of interest are from simply casting an eye over where they land, if not you have lost them.

This and This and This and This....................... is a mess, no one can make any sense of it, it just puts people off it.

 

[EL_JOCK]

this what you looking for?

https://github.com/GPUOpen-Effects

took less than 4 minutes to find

 

[Insanties_birth]

Not saying they could add an agreement to the licence for the software, but they could add it as a condition to the contract for AMD sponsoring the game.

As for the rest of the contract, I'm still not really clear on if they have to make the modified versions available under the same licence (i.e. that anyone can use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell the alter version of the code, such as PureHair). I'd read it that they don't, but...

Which again is then a completely separate issue. GPUopen is open software so has nothing to do with sponsoring as shown from the the poster you replied to. THat was my point from the beginning, there is no real argument against GPUopen as it has no real way of forcing devs to used closed software (like gameworks) which is closed so could potentially have harmful software. The only real argument anyone can make against it is that it could be corrupted after the fact which is then nothing to do with the take it for free and no strings attached approach it is being delivered with. Thereby this completes the point that gpuopen is a good thing and only influence afterwards (which is possible through any system of coding but still doesn't change that the initial way it's delivered still is more open than the alternatives).

This is the distinction a lot are simply ignoring. GPUopen by it's current method of delivery, licensing and open nature simply has no possibility of being biased to one source and bribing / shady deals done afterwards are possible but clearly are not required, would require extra effort to get this done (whereas Nvidia for example could deliver pre-gimped software) and bear no weight on the initial program we are discussing. This is like saying schools aiming to deliver healthier food are no less susceptible to having bad food if they choose to let it rot .... Sure. But that would be a separate issue to them buying and supplying healthy food in a manner that is no strings attached. I'm not complaining about gameworks here but it's the obvious example from the competition and I'm merely suggesting gpuopen is a better way going forward but of course it took a bit of arguing when some felt that it was somehow a slight to praise AMD doing something good. Just remember that people, stop the AMD / Nvidia childishness and you might remember to look at the program for what it actually is, an open and fair step forward.

 

[AlamoX]

Typical AMD, lots of different ways to read up on it but actually finding where to get it is nearly impossible.

You'd think maybe on one of its blog stile webpages they would have a button labeled "DownLoad It Here" but no....

One information page leads to another and another and another...... at no point do they point you to where what they talk about actually is.

Its like their forums, needlessly complicated, nothing makes any ergonomic sense and you never find what you're actually looking for.

Who designed all this crap? its bad just shockingly bad.

Rules when trying to attract people to your products, keep it simple, less information is better, where to get the product should be obvious to your 85 year old grandmother, never under any circumstance embed and bury your product availability link's in your marketing.
Have only one dedicated master page to your product, it should contain a brief description, minimal marketing and clearly labeled direct links on where to get the product.
Think, peoples attention span is about 2 minutes, if you cannot grip them and make them take an interest in 1 minute you have lost them, if they don't feel comfortable navigating your site in 5 seconds you have lost them, people should know where they are and where key points of interest are from simply casting an eye over where they land, if not you have lost them.

This and This and This and This....................... is a mess, no one can make any sense of it, it just puts people off it.

each one at the bottom specifies here are the Resources : then gives you a link to the Github where to get it and the whitepaper, personally i went looking for the tressfx licence term, and was pretty straight forward and clear.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

Which again is then a completely separate issue. GPUopen is open software so has nothing to do with sponsoring as shown from the the poster you replied to. THat was my point from the beginning, there is no real argument against GPUopen as it has no real way of forcing devs to used closed software (like gameworks) which is closed so could potentially have harmful software. The only real argument anyone can make against it is that it could be corrupted after the fact which is then nothing to do with the take it for free and no strings attached approach it is being delivered with. Thereby this completes the point that gpuopen is a good thing and only influence afterwards (which is possible through any system of coding but still doesn't change that the initial way it's delivered still is more open than the alternatives).

This is the distinction a lot are simply ignoring. GPUopen by it's current method of delivery, licensing and open nature simply has no possibility of being biased to one source and bribing / shady deals done afterwards are possible but clearly are not required, would require extra effort to get this done (whereas Nvidia for example could deliver pre-gimped software) and bear no weight on the initial program we are discussing. This is like saying schools aiming to deliver healthier food are no less susceptible to having bad food if they choose to let it rot .... Sure. But that would be a separate issue to them buying and supplying healthy food in a manner that is no strings attached. I'm not complaining about gameworks here but it's the obvious example from the competition and I'm merely suggesting gpuopen is a better way going forward but of course it took a bit of arguing when some felt that it was somehow a slight to praise AMD doing something good. Just remember that people, stop the AMD / Nvidia childishness and you might remember to look at the program for what it actually is, an open and fair step forward.

So basically the "guns don't kill people, people do" outlook.
I'm not saying GPUOpen is bad, far from it, I'm just saying it can be misused.

 

[queamin]

Until it is as bad as Gamesworks then you would have a point until then you haven't.

 

[AlamoX]

It doesn't change the fact even at any level AMD PR and marketing who are being paid by the company to promote them didn't even release a statement (as I mentioned before) about the tech being used in a major game. It boggles me what mistakes AMD marketing makes.

How much effort does it take for them(even after bouncing back to higher ups and legal people) for them to just make a statement of a few lines?

well there is another way to look at it, maybe AMD didnt do GPUOpen as a Marketing stunt, maybe AMD's move is primarily to prevent something they deemed bad for them, like steering Devs away from Gameworks and VRworks towards AMD's FX and LiquidVR, beside AMD wouldn't need to sponsor games anymore, tomb raider shows that pure hair's visuals are as good as hair works, with no downside on performance for both vendors, and licence free, this sounds like a strong incentive, that doesnt cost AMD a cent(other than prior R&D).
for Nvidia to fight that incentive, they will have to sponsor the game and spend money, and remember that gameworks is supposed to be a paying licence, this whole thing cannot be sustainable in the long term by Nvidia, well assuming that AMD manages to steer ppl to GPUOpen successfully.

So basically the "guns don't kill people, people do" outlook.
I'm not saying GPUOpen is bad, far from it, I'm just saying it can be misused.

tell me something, anything that cannot be misused ?
even a grocery bag can be misused to choke ppl to death...still that's no reason to argue the existence of grocery bags

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

well there is another way to look at it, maybe AMD didnt do GPUOpen as a Marketing stunt, maybe AMD's move is primarily to prevent something they deemed bad for them, like steering Devs away from Gameworks and VRworks towards AMD's FX and LiquidVR, beside AMD wouldn't need to sponsor games anymore, tomb raider shows that pure hair's visuals are as good as hair works, with no downside on performance for both vendors, and licence free, this sounds like a strong incentive, that doesnt cost AMD a cent(other than prior R&D).
for Nvidia to fight that incentive, they will have to sponsor the game and spend money, and remember that gameworks is supposed to be a paying licence, this whole thing cannot be sustainable in the long term by Nvidia, well assuming that AMD manages to steer ppl to GPUOpen successfully.

I did touch on that early that AMD was doing the whole GPUOpen stuff,sharing code for TressFX so they can try and blunt Gameworks and have more adoption of technologies that would run on their cards.

But the thing is even if they don't expect devs to be singing praises of it,AMD seem to be not doing enough on their side to update their webpages,or even release a small puff piece to make the general gaming public aware they have a better way of doing things. Nvidia has just trolled them by patting CD on the pack regarding Purehair and AMD gets scant attention that it was there initiative which lead to it. Basically it shows AMD is helping release tech which is equivalent to some aspect of what Nvidia is doing since you tend to get people even now on how Nvidia offers XYZ over AMD with regards to features and many are just general gamers who see Nvidia advertising it 24/7 while AMD is just quiet.

Like I mentioned before these PR puff pieces are more for general gamers than hardware enthusiasts who already follow these kinds of things.

Also,it keeps AMD in the news with regards to something positive.

 

[Insanties_birth]

So basically the "guns don't kill people, people do" outlook.
I'm not saying GPUOpen is bad, far from it, I'm just saying it can be misused.

yes but that's the 'anything can be ruined so nothing is good' outlook. It's been evidenced from the license agreement that
1) the software is open and free to be optimised from either side (this is beneficial and better scrutinised)
2) the license agreement has no strings attached so unlike other more closed off deals there is no real way this can be abused except after the fact.
3) the argument that it can be abused after the fact is true of anything but at least the delivery method here makes it far less likely.

your argument is no different to saying an orange can be misused (as a weapon) so we can't feed people any more (or rather that there must be some unnatural level of suspicion towards the oranges regardless of it having better scrutiny than the other food we can have). The problem with it is that it's so derivative it could be applied to anything at any time. It ignores the fact that GPUopen has a clear open structure, no strings attached and no fee or involvement expected from AMD. Anything can be abused but there's no reason to arbitrarily mention this as it is the case for anything so if the argument is merely to state that after the fact it could be altered and is not 100% foolproof then sure but that is the case with anything. In the end the fact they give it free of charge with no strings attached does mean that they are disincentivising any need for it to be altered. Anyone can readily take it without needing to adhere to AMD's whims so that is the major difference. So again, it may not be 100% foolproof in the eyes of an almighty god but that is the case with anything and it still ends up far more reliable since it is given away free of charge and thereby developers wouldn't have any reason or lack of leverage to need to change it. If I give you an orange I wouldn't think you'd take too well to me asking for you to beat someone up to have the orange when it's already been given to you.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

yes but that's the 'anything can be ruined so nothing is good' outlook. It's been evidenced from the license agreement that
1) the software is open and free to be optimised from either side (this is beneficial and better scrutinised)
2) the license agreement has no strings attached so unlike other more closed off deals there is no real way this can be abused except after the fact.
3) the argument that it can be abused after the fact is true of anything but at least the delivery method here makes it far less likely.

your argument is no different to saying an orange can be misused (as a weapon) so we can't feed people any more (or rather that there must be some unnatural level of suspicion towards the oranges regardless of it having better scrutiny than the other food we can have). The problem with it is that it's so derivative it could be applied to anything at any time. It ignores the fact that GPUopen has a clear open structure, no strings attached and no fee or involvement expected from AMD. Anything can be abused but there's no reason to arbitrarily mention this as it is the case for anything so if the argument is merely to state that after the fact it could be altered and is not 100% foolproof then sure but that is the case with anything. In the end the fact they give it free of charge with no strings attached does mean that they are disincentivising any need for it to be altered. Anyone can readily take it without needing to adhere to AMD's whims so that is the major difference. So again, it may not be 100% foolproof in the eyes of an almighty god but that is the case with anything and it still ends up far more reliable since it is given away free of charge and thereby developers wouldn't have any reason or lack of leverage to need to change it. If I give you an orange I wouldn't think you'd take too well to me asking for you to beat someone up to have the orange when it's already been given to you.

Well yeah, are you new here? Have you not read my posts? Everything IS bad...

Also, as stated, the argument always used to be that Nvidia paid developers to use GameWorks (because it was the only way to get them to use it). ASre we now saying Devs will start turning down the money so they can use GPUOpen? Or that Nvidia will stop offering it? Crystal Dynamics used TressFX in the last game, so it's not like this has turned them away from GameWorks, if anything with HBAO+ aren't they using MORE GameWorks than before? Doesn't GPUOpen offer an HBAO+ alternative?

I wonder if we'll see TressFX in any games?

 

[AlamoX]

Well yeah, are you new here? Have you not read my posts? Everything IS bad...

Also, as stated, the argument always used to be that Nvidia paid developers to use GameWorks (because it was the only way to get them to use it). ASre we now saying Devs will start turning down the money so they can use GPUOpen? Or that Nvidia will stop offering it? Crystal Dynamics used TressFX in the last game, so it's not like this has turned them away from GameWorks, if anything with HBAO+ aren't they using MORE GameWorks than before? Doesn't GPUOpen offer an HBAO+ alternative?

I wonder if we'll see TressFX in any games?

not all the Devs are getting the money, the difference now is that if they are not getting the money they might as well use what's free.
and what doesnt use Nvidia's solution will be using it's competitor, so on paper this is a real challenge to Nvidia Gameworks but contingent on the market share AMD holds for gpuopen to be a strong incentive for triple A games going for visuals.
the funny part is that everyone stands to benefit from gpuopen, studios, users, and even nvidia, if you take nvidia investment in gameworks ofc out of the equation.