On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Brian Paul wrote:
> Vertex programming is in the latest Mesa code (I implemented
> GL_NV_vertex program over the winter/spring). It'll be available
> to all DRI drivers when the DRI gets Mesa 4.1.
>
> NVIDIA gave me permission to implement the extension in software only.
> But since that time, NVIDIA has announced basically unrestricted
> permission to implement GL_NV_vertex_program. I'll have to talk to
> them again someday regarding future DRI hardware implementations.
But that's the thing - nVidia granted permission for the ARB to
integrate the NV_vertex_program as an ARB extension - then MS stepped
in and said that they owned (?some of?) the IP for vertex programs -
and possibly for fragment programs too.
The general assumption is that they got this in the bundle of IP
rights that SGI sold them - but I havn't seen confirmation of that.
It's possible that systems like Fuche's Pixel-Planes (University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Comp. Sci. department) represents
prior art here - but I wonder whether there is anyone with deep
enough pockets to fight Microsoft's lawyers on that basis.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~pxfl/
Pixel Planes-2 certainly implemented 'fragment' programmability
as early as 1980 - but I'm not clear on whether they ever had
something like vertex programs.
> But like everyone else, I'm worried about Microsoft's recent actions.
Yep.
> I love working with OpenGL and don't want to see it strangled by
> anyone or anything. OpenGL still has a HUGE user base spanning
> everyone from ISVs, to researchers, to educators, to hobbyists.
> If Microsoft really takes action to kill OpenGL I'd hope that the
> uproar and ill-will generated by such a move would convince them
> to back off.
The deal though is that (presuming MS really do own these rights)
they are talking in terms of LICENSING this IP to allow OpenGL
to continue to exist. Who would pay them to license it for
Linux?
Yes, that would kill vertex programming on OpenSourced OpenGL - but
not on MS platforms - so that huge user base would be forced
to migrate to Windows (or perhaps to Mac OS-X) if they wished
to stay abreast of current hardware.
Since modern hardware is becoming more and more heavily dependent
on programmability in the graphics pipeline, we could end up
with no way to support modern graphics cards.
No hardware accellerated 3D spells bad things for the Linux/BSD
desktops - something that Microsoft are clearly aware of.
This is not a small issue.
Hopefully there will be some clarification of the situation
at SigGraph when OpenGL 1.4 is supposed to be announced.
----
Steve Baker (817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail)
L3Com/Link Simulation & Training (817)619-2466 (Fax)
Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.link.com
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sjbaker.org
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
