allquixotic: IANAL an all that, but this situation is pretty much the same as with some video codecs (H264 and others) and it isn't something endusers need to worry about, only distributors.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Super! Patented Mesa Floating-Point Is Merged!
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by allquixotic View PostMy last question: Does anyone seriously think that a patent holder on a ClosedGL patent is going to go after end-users for compiling this software themselves, for their own personal use on their own computer, without distributing it to anyone?
Comment
-
Originally posted by HokTar View PostNow we only need an option in installers to enable patented 3D stuff just like the support for mp3 and flash in the ubuntu installer.
Or at least a ppa.
On the other hand I think now the main focus should be on enabling ogl 3.3 on supported hardware asap. I know there's a lot work left but you should get my point.
Comment
-
If they kept the floating point and other patented stuff in separate files the chances for bit rot would be very low.
This situation still comes over as dangerous.
Hopefully it's 2018 is going to be here fast.
(Filing Date:06/16/1998 + 20 years = 06/16/2018)
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattst88 View PostAnd on that note, I just pushed a change to the x11 overlay that adds a texture-float USE flag.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DanL View PostCode:configure: WARNING: Floating-point textures enabled. configure: WARNING: Please consult docs/patents.txt with your lawyer before building Mesa.
Note to my lawyer: I didn't actually build mesa, just ran autogen. I swear!
Comment
-
Originally posted by allquixotic View PostThis is great news, but it raises a lot of questions.
Is this essentially the same situation as ffmpeg is in with patented codecs? If so, third party apt and yum repositories will probably start building mesa with these config options turned on before long.
If "I" (hypothetically) live in and host a server in a country where software patents are outlawed, is it legal for me to distribute compiled binaries of the program containing patented algorithms, to: (a) people who are *also* in countries where software patents are outlawed; and (b) people who are in countries where software patents are *legal*? Further, what is my risk of getting sued in foreign courts by patent holders who accuse me of distributing it to people in category (b), whether or not I ever have?
Finally, would it be possible for someone to go "the Fluendo route" (alluding to their work with their Gstreamer codecs), and legally license the patents in such a way that SGI/S3/Apple/Nvidia/Matrox get their fscking money, while still allowing people to use the latest and greatest Mesa with all the patented algorithms enabled? etc. ...
So, if you were to license the code from SGI, build it, and provide gratis access to the public, the public would still not be legally entitled to use the code because the patent license is valid for you only.
Of course, it's possible for patent holders to grant licenses favourable to free software. For example, I believe the Java patents are granted unilaterally to GPL implementations derived directly from the official source
Unless they just want to say "no" in order to stonewall free software, and no other reason. I could definitely see Nvidia doing that, and maybe SGI. Apple actually releases and relies upon significant open source software, so I think they might agree to let go of their patent under these terms.
My last question: Does anyone seriously think that a patent holder on a ClosedGL patent is going to go after end-users for compiling this software themselves, for their own personal use on their own computer, without distributing it to anyone? The number of end-users they would be able to sue would probably be measured in the hundreds or low thousands -- that's not nearly as lucrative as the music and video copyright cartels and the hundreds of millions of users out there who've ever downloaded a song. Considering that a lawsuit in this area costs a ton of money, the lawyers would end up keeping most of it, and the company would get very little out of your average person. With so few people willing to compile Mesa themselves, this doesn't seem likely to ever become a real issue for personal users.
Without "commercial" support, those technologies will not be part of the default ecosystem, and third-party applications will not be able to rely on it presence. For something like graphics drivers performance, this is a pretty big deal. If open source drivers can only get better performance using unsupported code and (in many places) illegal code, the open source driver becomes much less of a priority for programs that require better performance.
It's the same with any software patent. You are at a competitive disadvantage if your product requires patented code that you cannot obtain a license for.
Comment
-
Originally posted by yesterday View PostConsidering Apple's position on h264 and their many software patents targeting the mobile platform,
Comment
Comment