zlacker

[return to "Building the DirectX shader compiler better than Microsoft?"]
1. mcraih+c7[view] [source] 2024-02-10 11:02:34
>>emidoo+(OP)
This is also related to Godot "The reason to make it optional is that Direct3D 12 support currently relies on the proprietary dxil.dll library from the DirectX Shader Compiler being shipped together with Godot, and shipping proprietary software goes against the mission of the Godot project." https://godotengine.org/article/dev-snapshot-godot-4-3-dev-3...
◧◩
2. yazzku+zw1[view] [source] 2024-02-10 22:05:33
>>mcraih+c7
Which part of dxil/dxc is proprietary exactly? Trying to make sense of the license barf at https://github.com/microsoft/DirectXShaderCompiler
◧◩◪
3. zerocr+gz1[view] [source] 2024-02-10 22:31:55
>>yazzku+zw1
The license (and the code) for dxil.dll/libdxil.so isn't in that repo, they just include the blob in releases. If you look at a release you'll see an additional LICENSE-MS.txt that just covers that dxil signing library.
◧◩◪◨
4. yazzku+zz1[view] [source] 2024-02-10 22:35:39
>>zerocr+gz1
How is that compatible with the GPL licence from autoconf?
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. p_l+oS1[view] [source] 2024-02-11 01:59:04
>>yazzku+zz1
GPL doesn't care about inclusion or linking, it cares about derivative work. And somehow I doubt the 3d engine is derivative work of a piece of autoconf.
[go to top]