Topic: CCminer(SP-MOD) Modded NVIDIA Maxwell / Pascal kernels. - page 240. (Read 2347601 times)
can you answer my pm i would like to know more about the tribus mod
does he need to open source it? no, he doesnt even have to provide us with updates or as a matter of fact some binary at all.
if it was about the money he would go to some china farm or btc whale and collect 1000btc from just one company with enough hashing power to roi in a couple of weeks
now is it the best thing to do? or the right thing to do?! arguing about it wont matter.
sp_ donators are very happy with their donation and all the service they get.
it still a long way untill we all work together.
w104/07
if it was about the money he would go to some china farm or btc whale and collect 1000btc from just one company with enough hashing power to roi in a couple of weeks
now is it the best thing to do? or the right thing to do?! arguing about it wont matter.
sp_ donators are very happy with their donation and all the service they get.
it still a long way untill we all work together.
w104/07
sp_ why don't you just start your own self-moderated thread? I am sick of reading through looking for updates and tips/tricks and seeing people shitting on your obviously superior work and being all butthurt about it.
To those who keep crying about his work: how about you produce a faster binary than his (with an included fee) and everyone will happily switch to it and you'll make a ton of money?
To those who keep crying about his work: how about you produce a faster binary than his (with an included fee) and everyone will happily switch to it and you'll make a ton of money?
i would say well said, but you have to think about the other side.
without the open source version sp_ mod wouldnt exsist.
i love open source and im all for it.
i wish i could code but each time i try to learn my brain explodes.
in a perfect world we would all work together and release everything opensource so we can advance from each other.
but all we do is fight and compromise each others work.
now we have a binary that really is superior to most others out there and if sp_ chooses to collect a really minor donation so i can enjoy this advantage.
w108/06
sp_ why don't you just start your own self-moderated thread? I am sick of reading through looking for updates and tips/tricks and seeing people shitting on your obviously superior work and being all butthurt about it.
To those who keep crying about his work: how about you produce a faster binary than his (with an included fee) and everyone will happily switch to it and you'll make a ton of money?
To those who keep crying about his work: how about you produce a faster binary than his (with an included fee) and everyone will happily switch to it and you'll make a ton of money?
we have ...
here - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-chainworks-industries-cwi-project-cwigm-simple-powerful-stable-2054431 ...
and further - if you prefer a thief and cheat to create your work - then you deserve what you get with him ...
#crysx
no: GPL gives right of requesting the sources to everyone that has the binary, not just the copyright holder.
you, as a user of the binary, are not obliged to share it, but YOU CAN.
you, as a user of the binary, are not obliged to share it, but YOU CAN.
This isn't technically accurate - GPL is based on copyright law, and only the owner of a copyright has any right to enforce the terms of the copyright. A user with a binary can request the source code, but the obligation to distribute it is an obligation to the copyright holder, not the user. The user has no rights to enforce a copyright they do not own, and thus would have no standing to force distribution of the source code.
You are correct that under GPL a user an distribute a binary, but the user would have to be careful and be sure they actually received it under GPL. As I mentioned before, the copyright holder could enter into a separate license allowing someone else to distribute binaries without source code for a fee.
Again no, to both sentences.
You should read more about the GPL.
Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
I edited to make clear I'm talking about enforcement, not just the right to request. Someone with the binary can request the source code, and has the right to receive it, but only the copyright holder can enforce those rights. (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhoHasThePower)
As for the second part, nothing prevents the copyright holder from releasing code under GPL, and then releasing a separate version under a different license for resale. But that right only belongs to the copyright holder - not anyone who received GPL-licensed software. They must distribute the code, or they are violating the copyright holder's rights under GPL.
an IP lawyer? ... have you even read the GPL? ...
here - let me help you with your non-conforming advice ( or non-advice as your post seems to be ) with the link - https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html ...
pay close attention to the details - particularly to sections 4 5 and 6 ... where source is BY LAW part of the verbatim - non-verbatim - and modified distributed versions ...
sp ( rune ) is BREAKING THE LAW - by receiving PAID PURCHASES for products that he does NOT hold the copyright to - WITHOUT providing the source code to the modified source ...
while ive maintained my silence with all this hooha - i totally agree with you ( and so does the law ) that sp needs to EDUCATE himself on the meanings of certain terms and words of the english vocabulary ...
this link is to help rune understand what a donor ( what he calls 'donator' ) is and means ...
donor ( thats 'donator' to you sp ) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donor ...
donation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation ...
and here is what you are ACTUALLY doing - and fooling everyone into thinking that they are 'donating' ...
purchase ( your meaning of 'donating' ) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing ...
buy ( also your meaning of 'donating' ) - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/buy ...
being the sly conniving scum that you are - you will just ignore all these things posted and STILL think that you are doing nothing wrong ...
but wait a minute - redistributing the cuda90 dll to 'donators' too? ... isnt that breaking the nvidia license as well? ...
yup - sure does ...
just on that point also - as i know YOU rune - and alexis intimately ... have worked with both of you closely - and have watched and geared our business ( CWI ) to protect ourselves from scumbags of the likes of you - i can say this much ...
the difference between you and alexis is a chasm the size of the grand canyon ...
#crysx
sp_ why don't you just start your own self-moderated thread? I am sick of reading through looking for updates and tips/tricks and seeing people shitting on your obviously superior work and being all butthurt about it.
To those who keep crying about his work: how about you produce a faster binary than his (with an included fee) and everyone will happily switch to it and you'll make a ton of money?
To those who keep crying about his work: how about you produce a faster binary than his (with an included fee) and everyone will happily switch to it and you'll make a ton of money?
no: GPL gives right of requesting the sources to everyone that has the binary, not just the copyright holder.
you, as a user of the binary, are not obliged to share it, but YOU CAN.
you, as a user of the binary, are not obliged to share it, but YOU CAN.
This isn't technically accurate - GPL is based on copyright law, and only the owner of a copyright has any right to enforce the terms of the copyright. A user with a binary can request the source code, but the obligation to distribute it is an obligation to the copyright holder, not the user. The user has no rights to enforce a copyright they do not own, and thus would have no standing to force distribution of the source code.
You are correct that under GPL a user an distribute a binary, but the user would have to be careful and be sure they actually received it under GPL. As I mentioned before, the copyright holder could enter into a separate license allowing someone else to distribute binaries without source code for a fee.
Again no, to both sentences.
You should read more about the GPL.
Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
I edited to make clear I'm talking about enforcement, not just the right to request. Someone with the binary can request the source code, and has the right to receive it, but only the copyright holder can enforce those rights. (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhoHasThePower)
As for the second part, nothing prevents the copyright holder from releasing code under GPL, and then releasing a separate version under a different license for resale. But that right only belongs to the copyright holder - not anyone who received GPL-licensed software. They must distribute the code, or they are violating the copyright holder's rights under GPL.
2 weeks have past, and still nobody has managed to create a faster opensource signatum kernel based on your work. Stop trolling and show some skills.
I think you'd better write good code than make wars on forum.Your skunk miner was already beated in terms of speed at least by CWI. Their miner completely beats yours in terms of CPU usage which is 0-0.3% usual, while yours uses 1-2-3-4 cores completely depending on intensity.
Your sp3/5 give ~231Mh/s on 6*1080 while CWI 250Mh/s. The same clocks.
no: GPL gives right of requesting the sources to everyone that has the binary, not just the copyright holder.
you, as a user of the binary, are not obliged to share it, but YOU CAN.
you, as a user of the binary, are not obliged to share it, but YOU CAN.
This isn't technically accurate - GPL is based on copyright law, and only the owner of a copyright has any right to enforce the terms of the copyright. A user with a binary can request the source code, but the obligation to distribute it is an obligation to the copyright holder, not the user. The user has no rights to enforce a copyright they do not own, and thus would have no standing to force distribution of the source code.
You are correct that under GPL a user an distribute a binary, but the user would have to be careful and be sure they actually received it under GPL. As I mentioned before, the copyright holder could enter into a separate license allowing someone else to distribute binaries without source code for a fee.
Again no, to both sentences.
You should read more about the GPL.
Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
no: GPL gives right of requesting the sources to everyone that has the binary, not just the copyright holder.
you, as a user of the binary, are not obliged to share it, but YOU CAN.
you, as a user of the binary, are not obliged to share it, but YOU CAN.
You are correct that under GPL a user an distribute a binary, but the user would have to be careful and be sure they actually received it under GPL. As I mentioned before, the copyright holder could enter into a separate license allowing someone else to distribute binaries without source code for a fee.
Edit: It actually is technically accurate - anyone who received a binary licensed under GPL has the right to request it - but that's it - only to request, not to receive. The owner of the copyright is the one with the rights to make sure that anyone who requests it actually receives it.
no: GPL gives right of requesting the sources to everyone that has the binary, not just the copyright holder.
you, as a user of the binary, are not obliged to share it, but YOU CAN.
you, as a user of the binary, are not obliged to share it, but YOU CAN.
I use same settings on mod 3 and mod 5. Mod 5 restart every 10-15 min, and mod 3 is working perfectly.
You also need to make sure that your risers can handle the power increase. I had to switch back to mod 3 for exactly this reason - my risers were failing at a much higher rate. Mod 3 was very stable for me, and the incremental increases afterward couldn't make up for the downtime caused by instability.
Also, just to add my two cents on GPL (I'm a lawyer, but this is not intended to be legal advice to anyone), calling something beta, and calling a fee a donation, does not alter the copyright owner's rights under GPL. Unless the copyright holder agrees otherwise, the source code and GPL must be distributed along with any binaries to those that request it, or the copyright owner's rights are violated.
That said, I "donated" (and I'm glad I did), but didn't receive (or request, for that matter) source code. But *I* have no right to the source code, because I'm not the copyright holder. The only one who could enforce GPL if they wanted to is the holder of the copyright. Likewise, the copyright holder could enter into a separate license with SP to distribute binaries without the source code if they wanted to (not saying that happened here - it looks like it didn't, but something to keep in mind for anyone who isn't a copyright holder when they complain about GPL).
One more thing to keep in mind - had I received the source code, I would have been under no obligation to publish it or share it (unless I published/shared the binary), nor would I have any incentive to do so. There's nothing wrong with SP modifying and selling GPL licensed code as long as the terms of GPL are followed, but only economic incentives would prevent redistribution of that code.
I use same settings on mod 3 and mod 5. Mod 5 restart every 10-15 min, and mod 3 is working perfectly.
Mod 5 is using a little bit more power than #3 so you need to increase the TDP to get the most out of it. You also need to make sure that your risers can handle the power increase.
yeah i went from 1500w to 1700w with 2 rigs, but only like 10mh more on pool :/ i wonder if i should get back to #3
I use same settings on mod 3 and mod 5. Mod 5 restart every 10-15 min, and mod 3 is working perfectly.
Mod 5 is using a little bit more power than #3 so you need to increase the TDP to get the most out of it. You also need to make sure that your risers can handle the power increase.
If there is a fee and then it is considered to be something for free?
No fee in the signatum kernel
It's a private build not ment for public distribution. Comes with free updates.
Hello sp_,
I dont understand why dont you give us who donated faster sig#6 mod if you already developed it and its stable. Mod 5 fix is still buged. It restart every 10min for me so im still on mod 3. Point for donators is to get coins faster and faster.
Ty
I dont understand why dont you give us who donated faster sig#6 mod if you already developed it and its stable. Mod 5 fix is still buged. It restart every 10min for me so im still on mod 3. Point for donators is to get coins faster and faster.
Ty
Are you overclocking? i run the Mod 5 fix since few days without issues.
Cheers
I use same settings on mod 3 and mod 5. Mod 5 restart every 10-15 min, and mod 3 is working perfectly.
Till now i have seen the fastest version for SIGT is ....... krnlx ........... on my 1080Ti
Hello sp_,
I dont understand why dont you give us who donated faster sig#6 mod if you already developed it and its stable. Mod 5 fix is still buged. It restart every 10min for me so im still on mod 3. Point for donators is to get coins faster and faster.
Ty
I dont understand why dont you give us who donated faster sig#6 mod if you already developed it and its stable. Mod 5 fix is still buged. It restart every 10min for me so im still on mod 3. Point for donators is to get coins faster and faster.
Ty
Are you overclocking? i run the Mod 5 fix since few days without issues.
Cheers
But I am not distrubuting my private kernels. Beta version are sendt out for free to my donators for testing purposes and feedback. I don't see where this break with the licensing..
And you are not one of my donators, so what are you bitching about?
2 weeks have past, and still nobody has managed to create a faster opensource signatum kernel based on your work. Stop trolling and show some skills.
And you are not one of my donators, so what are you bitching about?
2 weeks have past, and still nobody has managed to create a faster opensource signatum kernel based on your work. Stop trolling and show some skills.
If there is a fee and then it is considered to be something for free?
Probably you don't realize you are just seeing the tip of the iceberg, as far as mining on gpu is concerned.
Besides, there is krnlx fork which is opensource.
Yes, I have see it.Besides, there is krnlx fork which is opensource.
But I do not have the performance of SP mod5 fixed with this.
Jump to: