Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mesa Now Supports A Bit More Of OpenGL 3.0

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

  • Mesa Now Supports A Bit More Of OpenGL 3.0

    Phoronix: Mesa Now Supports A Bit More Of OpenGL 3.0

    While some Mesa developers spent some time this weekend investigating WebGL issues in open-source drivers as noted by Firefox developers, Brian Paul and others have been tackling support for some new OpenGL extensions...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTAyMQ

  • #2
    patent issues?

    this is weird. I thought OpenGL 3 is widely protected by various patents yet many GL3 functions are being implemented in mesa. So what's the story here? I'm not much of a legal guy so can someone point out what is actually protected by patents and cannot be implemented in free mesa?

    thx

    Comment


    • #3
      The patented stuff is being developed outside of Mesa and will not be merged in.

      As long as this stuff is patented, you will have to fetch and build your own Mesa.

      Aren't software patents great? It's an open standard which you are not allowed to implement.

      Comment


      • #4
        Speaking of patented OpenGL, does anyone know when we can look forward to some of the patents eventually expiring?

        Comment


        • #5
          I think somebody just broken the law (incl. the moral one) by including patented things in open standard.

          Seriously(really) there should be OpenGL and ClosedGL. The patented stuff should be dumped in the latter. This issue should reach Google and Kronos.

          OpenMP3...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Prescience500 View Post
            Speaking of patented OpenGL, does anyone know when we can look forward to some of the patents eventually expiring?
            About 13 more years for the floating-point patent.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
              I think somebody just broken the law (incl. the moral one) by including patented things in open standard.
              Nope. Open means that the standard is available to all, and that the standard itself is not proprietary. The fact that something in that standard is patented is an unfortunate coincidence, not intentional.

              For all intents and purposes, pretend that the patents were submarine patents. (They weren't, but the effect is similar.)

              Seriously(really) there should be OpenGL and ClosedGL. The patented stuff should be dumped in the latter. This issue should reach Google and Kronos.
              That's a horrible suggestion. OpenGL isn't some isolated graphics standard. It's a specification for allowing developers to access the features found in actual, real hardware. That's it. The fact that some of those features are patented is highly unfortunate, but we all expect OpenGL to fully expose the hardware capabilities, because otherwise OpenGL is immediately useless and the few holdouts remaining will all just jump to the Direct3D bandwagon.

              The whole reason people are complaining about these patents is because we actually fucking need those features, not because we want to have Mesa change a single version number in its interface. A version number which is almost meaningless because you can implement the entirety of OpenGL 4.1 in an OpenGL 2.0 driver thanks to the extensions feature in OpenGL. There's no reason that Mesa can't have every single non-patented OpenGL feature in its core today other than a lack of manpower. The version number is a convenience at absolute most.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by elanthis View Post
                About 13 more years for the floating-point patent.
                amd do not pay for that patent right now.

                maybe amd fight for the opensource drivers

                Comment


                • #9
                  Personally, I'm not worried about the patent situation in terms of usability. If the functionality is available in a separate branch, we can still fetch that (in the free world) and compile it, just like we do with the freetype stuff and LAME.

                  What is worrying me is that some of this patented stuff will end up not being developed at all, because nobody wants to risk it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat
                    What is worrying me is that some of this patented stuff will end up not being developed at all, because nobody wants to risk it.
                    The biggest problem is the lack of manpower and this seems like a problem without solution

                    With sufficient manpower the patented features would/could be implemented and used in the free world

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                      As long as this stuff is patented, you will have to fetch and build your own Mesa.

                      Aren't software patents great? It's an open standard which you are not allowed to implement.
                      This is starting to really bother me. I have no problem building Mesa with an extra configure flag. I do have a problem keeping track of what BS patents are in place and where their implementations are hiding. Like the case of the S3TC extension (yes, this again) that apparently works, but is no longer hosted where people say it is.

                      I'm honestly not quite sure how to express my growing rage at this situation.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by elanthis View Post
                        OpenGL isn't some isolated graphics standard. It's a specification for allowing developers to access the features found in actual, real hardware. That's it. The fact that some of those features are patented is highly unfortunate, but we all expect OpenGL to fully expose the hardware capabilities, because otherwise OpenGL is immediately useless and the few holdouts remaining will all just jump to the Direct3D bandwagon.

                        The whole reason people are complaining about these patents is because we actually fucking need those features, not because we want to have Mesa change a single version number in its interface. A version number which is almost meaningless because you can implement the entirety of OpenGL 4.1 in an OpenGL 2.0 driver thanks to the extensions feature in OpenGL. There's no reason that Mesa can't have every single non-patented OpenGL feature in its core today other than a lack of manpower. The version number is a convenience at absolute most.
                        If this is the case, then when people buy the "actual, real hardware" then they have an implied license to use any technology in that hardware.

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_license
                        "Implied licenses often arise where the licensee has purchased a physical embodiment of some intellectual property belonging to the licensor."

                        Given that users, and even FOSS developers, who have purchased a graphics card, which is a physical embodiment of some intellectual property, have an implied license to use that selfsame intellectual property, then there should be no issue in writng support for accessing that selfsame intellectual property in layers of FOSS software which sit above the hardware. The intellectual property is implemented in the hardware, so IP owners asking for royalties from software projects for layers above the hardware would be double-dipping.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          (software) patents suck!

                          Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                          Aren't software patents great? It's an open standard which you are not allowed to implement.
                          Indeed. Fortunately they don't apply here in Europe and if I may, I humbly suggest any European residents present on this forum to sign this petition to help making sure it stays that way. Poland even completely rejected such a concept which makes me seriously consider moving here if those incompetent morons in our government sanction it (and I gotta say they've proven beyond any doubt they're much more than enough corrupt and stupid to do so).
                          I hope Adarion doesn't mind if I quote his "Stop TCPA, stupid software patents and corrupt politicians!"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Very frustrating

                            Originally posted by hal2k1 View Post
                            If this is the case, then when people buy the "actual, real hardware" then they have an implied license to use any technology in that hardware.

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_license
                            "Implied licenses often arise where the licensee has purchased a physical embodiment of some intellectual property belonging to the licensor."

                            Given that users, and even FOSS developers, who have purchased a graphics card, which is a physical embodiment of some intellectual property, have an implied license to use that selfsame intellectual property, then there should be no issue in writng support for accessing that selfsame intellectual property in layers of FOSS software which sit above the hardware. The intellectual property is implemented in the hardware, so IP owners asking for royalties from software projects for layers above the hardware would be double-dipping.
                            Anything that get's implemented in Mesa will be available through the software driver (softpipe or llvmpipe) which means there is no real hardware behind it.

                            However, in this case, a court has already ruled in ATI's favor that implementing this support in their driver did not infringe upon the patent, so it's extremely irritating that Mesa won't add it to theirs. Their stance seems to be, even though we know this isn't patented, we'll probably be sued anyway so we won't bother with it.

                            At this point, i think we only have 2 hopes.

                            1. Intel realizes this is important as their hardware gets faster and makes it a priority.

                            2. Some dev realizes what a disaster this is and hosts their own version of Mesa somewhere with all these changes, and publishes it around so that people are aware of where to get it. I don't really mean fork mesa, but just keep a patch set up to date with the latest Mesa that people can easily use.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                              Personally, I'm not worried about the patent situation in terms of usability. If the functionality is available in a separate branch, we can still fetch that (in the free world) and compile it, just like we do with the freetype stuff and LAME.

                              What is worrying me is that some of this patented stuff will end up not being developed at all, because nobody wants to risk it.
                              That is soo funny.
                              You just don't understand how monopolization works. You could OUTLAW by pain of death the implimentation of closed standards and people would create more of them than you can shake a stick at.
                              This is how it works in the real world. Develop closed standard pass it out. Let people get used to it and once it's sufficiently dominant start rapidly and heavily enforcing patent on it. That's the software side. The hardware side is bit more difficult. They impliment closed standard, supplement it to make it more attractive then jack up license and chip costs. Intel is CONSTANTLY doing this to memory. They did it with RDRAM and they continue doing it with all their little goofy sever drams. Goal complete control of ram market, goal complete control of competitive advantage, our systems cost -15 bucks your systems cost +15 bucks. It never works so new tact. You should be hearing about it before too long. Intel has been a very naughty boy.

                              All laws are based on force and enforceability. If 50 percent of the people will not willingly follow it is a bad law. If 66 percent of people willingly accept an inferior position through laws you can start developing a "normalcy bias" in peoples thinkings. If you can get 83 percent to accept it you can develope a very strong normalcy bias and completely screw peoples heads off into lala land making unacceptable things so deeply entrenched that people will not fight back against it. The use of force and the basis of authority and monopolization of punishment or violence into one groups hands has enjoyed a 50 percent monopoly for most of human history. A legtimatized authoritarian regime. They are shooting for 83 percent but have lost huge market share.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X