Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An OpenGL 4.1 Gallium3D State Tracker Was Just Proposed

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

  • An OpenGL 4.1 Gallium3D State Tracker Was Just Proposed

    Phoronix: An OpenGL 4.1 Gallium3D State Tracker Was Just Proposed

    It's not often that really interesting mailing list messages come through on the weekend, but this Sunday there is a very interesting message that was posted to the Mesa development list. A Belgian developer has offered to write an OpenGL 4.1 state tracker for Gallium3D this summer. Not only that, but that this state tracker to support the latest OpenGL specification would be free of using Mesa. This would also mean parts of the OpenGL 3.x API, EGL context-creation, LLVMpipe support, OpenVG state tracker support, and possibly even Clover capabilities for OpenCL...

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

  • loonyphoenix
    replied
    Originally posted by Pickup View Post
    Last but not least: the granted swpats, all invalid, are hundred of thousands: if EU commission passes a directive to make software patentable (maybe as a ratification of some sort of international treaty like ACTA), all those pats will come into validity.... got it?
    I always thought law didn't work backwards, except for special cases such as pardons for crimes no longer considered crimes. That is, you shouldn't take into account what laws should be in the future. As long as you adhere to them now, no one can prosecute you afterwards. Therefore, a software developed while software patents are not legal, therefore making the software legal, shouldn't be prosecuted afterwards for infringing patents even if they do become legal.

    IANAL, though

    Leave a comment:


  • Pickup
    replied
    Originally posted by marek View Post
    What is a patentable invention in EU is given by the article 52 of EPC:

    http://www.epo.org/law-practice/lega...00/e/ar52.html

    Citing:

    (2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:

    (a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;

    (b) aesthetic creations;

    (c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;

    (d) presentations of information.

    The problem isn't about what is patentable and what is not, the problem is what is patented and what is not. Software may be not patentable in europe, but if EPO grants the swpats anyway, there are software patents. They're invalid, but they are. This means if the patent owners can stop developers' projects, sue them, have them criminally prosecuted (which involve seizure of equipement)... maybe the developers will win the lawsuits, but in the meanwhile (it may take years!) their projects are halted, and they face a LOT of trouble.

    Last but not least: the granted swpats, all invalid, are hundred of thousands: if EU commission passes a directive to make software patentable (maybe as a ratification of some sort of international treaty like ACTA), all those pats will come into validity.... got it?
    Last edited by Pickup; 03-16-2011, 08:53 AM. Reason: typo

    Leave a comment:


  • marek
    replied
    What is a patentable invention in EU is given by the article 52 of EPC:

    http://www.epo.org/law-practice/lega...00/e/ar52.html

    Citing:

    (2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:

    (a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;

    (b) aesthetic creations;

    (c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;

    (d) presentations of information.

    Leave a comment:


  • Veerappan
    replied
    Originally posted by not.sure View Post
    Can't the argument be made that by purchasing a modern GPU one also acquires a license to use these algorithms on the hardware and in software? And that would include any driver or graphics stack?
    No, unfortunately. The license that you are given when you buy the hardware only applies to the hardware, and the drivers directly provided by the hardware manufacturer. The license does not transfer to third-party graphics stacks. I believe that this has been covered in a few of the recent discussions about patented features in Mesa.

    Leave a comment:


  • Remco
    replied
    Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Google is also a very nice host for "Screw our interests over and we'll sue you too death for the next billion years or so and the sue your dead corpse".
    This is important.

    Bring S3TC and floating point textures into WebGL 2.0, and Google will go to town on these patents.

    Leave a comment:


  • not.sure
    replied
    Can't the argument be made that by purchasing a modern GPU one also acquires a license to use these algorithms on the hardware and in software? And that would include any driver or graphics stack?

    Leave a comment:


  • drag
    replied
    Originally posted by gzed View Post
    You're the one who's talking shit!

    The European Union has a directive from 1991 that states that software patents are illegal in the community.

    There are lobbies (mostly fueled by American corps) that tried to change this by giving birth to the EPO (European Patent Office) and registering patents, but they can't enforce them, since they're illegal here. The EPO is useless.

    *end of story*

    Yeah?

    You better tell that to MPEG-LA group. Who have been successfully suing then extracting licensing fees from corporations based out of Germany for patent infringement.

    http://www.design-reuse.com/news/147...2-patents.html

    Unless you don't consider Germany part of Europe.

    What the EPO believes, recommends, or not is completely irrelevant to anything I am saying.

    Most of the countries of Europe, even France (who courts have even gone out of their way to say that software patents are invalid), there is some threat. Not at the same level of USA, but it still exists. Why? Because your definition of software patents and their definition of software patents are not the same.

    Even in the USA the '100% pure software' patent is invalid. Nobody can issue a patent in the USA that is just about software. If you ever bothered to look at all the patents you'd notice that all of them describe a situation were the software interacts with hardware or the real world in some manner. They all describe in what manner some sort of device is required. In Europe most of the countries has some sort of 'technical character' or some such requirement that the patent has to meet in order to be valid. If a patent meets those standards then can be valid. Whether or not it involves software is only of minor relevance. It's much harder to do software patents in Europe, but many still apply. Especially when it comes to things like software drivers that are closely integrated into hardware.

    And don't think that your leaders actually give a shit. They only resist because USA patent law is designed to favor major American corporations. Once the Europeans work out their version of software patents that favors European companies more then American you can bet that they will push very hard for them.

    Leave a comment:


  • gzed
    replied
    Originally posted by drag View Post
    What I find irritating is people that say shit like this without much clue about what they are talking about.

    Saying shit like 'Oh Software patents are a USA only problem' is ignorance of the Nth degree. It's just a stupid wrong thing to say.

    What makes it worse is a lot of these people are from Europe, who you would think would actually now more about their own laws then USA ones... unfortunately most of them seem that they do not.
    You're the one who's talking shit!

    The European Union has a directive from 1991 that states that software patents are illegal in the community.

    There are lobbies (mostly fueled by American corps) that tried to change this by giving birth to the EPO (European Patent Office) and registering patents, but they can't enforce them, since they're illegal here. The EPO is useless.

    *end of story*

    Leave a comment:


  • HokTar
    replied
    Dear Dennis,

    Although I'm anything but an expert on the technical details I think the other devs suggested you three different topics:
    1) Remove as many IRs as possible (Mesa & TGSI)
    2) Implement as many closedGL extensions as possible
    3) Finish Clover, the OpenCL state tracker

    I think the benefit of these would be that they will be immediately useful for the whole community.
    Furthermore, at least the first two are necessary for your original idea.

    So my 2 cents:
    Pick one of these and you will get help and acceptance from both the devs and Google. You will have a pleasant summer and the community will gain a _lot_.
    Then if you still feel like it go for the original plan, you might apply next year too (I'm not sure about the rules, though, but you can always try the Endless Vacation of Code from FDO).

    You might want to consider this summer as laying down the necessary infrastructure for your state tracker.


    Of course I'm not here to tell you what to do and I'll support with all I've got regardless of your actual topic. But you know, it's always easy to be clever when you are an outsider.

    I wish the best of luck for you!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X