Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GL_ARB_TEXTURE_float

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GL_ARB_TEXTURE_float

    I wanted to know if this extention is available for ATI open source driver, and if not, I want to know where to check it out. Can anyone help on this?

  • #2
    Originally posted by klaus View Post
    I wanted to know if this extention is available for ATI open source driver, and if not, I want to know where to check it out. Can anyone help on this?
    Isn't that one of the exact features mentioned under the patented-OpenGL article that just got published? If so, then no, there is no Open Source support, and (hope aside) probably won't be anytime soon.

    Comment


    • #3
      glxinfo | grep float
      GL_MESAX_texture_float, GL_ARB_texture_mirrored_repeat,

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by elanthis View Post
        Isn't that one of the exact features mentioned under the patented-OpenGL article that just got published? If so, then no, there is no Open Source support, and (hope aside) probably won't be anytime soon.
        SGI owns US Patent #6,650,327, issued November 18, 2003. SGI
        believes this patent contains necessary IP for graphics systems
        implementing floating point (FP) rasterization and FP framebuffer
        capabilities.

        SGI will not grant the ARB royalty-free use of this IP for use in
        OpenGL, but will discuss licensing on RAND terms, on an individual
        basis with companies wishing to use this IP in the context of
        conformant OpenGL implementations. SGI does not plan to make any
        special exemption for open source implementations.

        Contact Doug Crisman at SGI Legal for the complete IP disclosure.
        From http://www.opengl.org/registry/specs...ture_float.txt

        Comment


        • #5
          If we all ignore the new, patent-troll sgi, eventually they'll go bankrupt again. Hopefully they'll stay down this time.

          Comment


          • #6
            Well, the patent in itself isn't new, it was filed in 1998, which means we only have to wait about nine more years for it to expire

            Comment


            • #7
              Mh my question about the patent stuff is. AMD has a licence for this Functions but why we cant use this in the free driver?

              I hope bridgman has an answer.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ant P. View Post
                If we all ignore the new, patent-troll sgi, eventually they'll go bankrupt again. Hopefully they'll stay down this time.
                That won't help at all. Their assets would be auctioned off, so the patent would just get transferred to someone else.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Nille View Post
                  Mh my question about the patent stuff is. AMD has a licence for this Functions but why we cant use this in the free driver?

                  I hope bridgman has an answer.
                  AMD would have the right to distribute software with the technology. Redistributors of the source code - eg the Linux distros and developers - do not have that right. By your logic every licensor of a patent would have the right to give the whole world the same rights. Instead of hoping for Bridgman to tell you the obvious, how about you spend 5 seconds to think about it yourself?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by elanthis View Post
                    That won't help at all. Their assets would be auctioned off, so the patent would just get transferred to someone else.
                    And obviously the OIN could buy it at this point.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ant P. View Post
                      And obviously the OIN could buy it at this point.
                      The OIN could _try_ to buy it at that point. They could easily get outbid.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hmm... would the Bilski case have an effect on this?
                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski
                        http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...91002213301495

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          We can't count on in re Bilski to still be in force for long; the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, which means that it's probably going to alter the "machine or transformation" rule. Hopefully they'll crack down on algorithm patents, but considering the corporation-friendly tilt of the recent Court (cf. Kelo v. City of New London and Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. just to give a couple famous examples), I wouldn't count on it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Kelo v. City of New London is a rather horrific and odious example of bad rulings. One can always hope for some improvement in our patent system. With the cost of patent litigation, it seems the biggest winners are the lawyers. Nothing new there I suppose...

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X