Re: [Dri-devel] Microsoft IP claims over OpenGL
José Fonseca wrote: Microsoft has been progressively claiming IP ownership of parts of the OpenGL API. (See http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2118968,00.html) Although the parts they claim are things like vertex programming - features that aren't present in older cards such as Mach64 -, it seems obvious that these are features very important in the current and next generation of graphics cards. 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. I would like to know your opinion about the influence this may have for the DRI and Mesa3D projects in particular, and for the OpenGL API in general. I consider myself a programmer and not a spokesperson for open-source, intellectual property, patent issues, or anything else. It's something I'd rather just avoid. But I guess it's something that I have to deal with to some extent. I don't have any deep insight into what Microsoft's actions will mean for OpenGL or Mesa. Other people are much better at analyzing the situation and deducing the potential impact. My time is best spent writing code. But like everyone else, I'm worried about Microsoft's recent actions. 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. -Brian --- 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
Re: [Dri-devel] Microsoft IP claims over OpenGL
[resending with corrected email address typo] José Fonseca wrote: Microsoft has been progressively claiming IP ownership of parts of the OpenGL API. (See http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2118968,00.html) Although the parts they claim are things like vertex programming - features that aren't present in older cards such as Mach64 -, it seems obvious that these are features very important in the current and next generation of graphics cards. 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. I would like to know your opinion about the influence this may have for the DRI and Mesa3D projects in particular, and for the OpenGL API in general. I consider myself a programmer and not a spokesperson for open-source, intellectual property, patent issues, or anything else. It's something I'd rather just avoid. But I guess it's something that I have to deal with to some extent. I don't have any deep insight into what Microsoft's actions will mean for OpenGL or Mesa. Other people are much better at analyzing the situation and deducing the potential impact. My time is best spent writing code. But like everyone else, I'm worried about Microsoft's recent actions. 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. -Brian --- 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
Re: [Mesa3d-dev] Re: [Dri-devel] Microsoft IP claims over OpenGL
On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 02:10:06PM -0500, Stephen J Baker wrote: | 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? There may be ways to finesse this. People are talking about the possibilities, but I haven't seen a conclusion yet. Allen --- 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
[Dri-devel] Microsoft IP claims over OpenGL
Microsoft has been progressively claiming IP ownership of parts of the OpenGL API. (See http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2118968,00.html) Although the parts they claim are things like vertex programming - features that aren't present in older cards such as Mach64 -, it seems obvious that these are features very important in the current and next generation of graphics cards. I would like to know your opinion about the influence this may have for the DRI and Mesa3D projects in particular, and for the OpenGL API in general. José Fonseca --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Gadgets, caffeine, t-shirts, fun stuff. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
[Dri-devel] Microsoft IP claims over OpenGL
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9?= Fonseca writes: Microsoft has been progressively claiming IP ownership of parts of the OpenGL API. (See http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2118968,00.html) Although the parts they claim are things like vertex programming - features that aren't present in older cards such as Mach64 -, it seems obvious that these are features very important in the current and next generation of graphics cards. I would like to know your opinion about the influence this may have for the DRI and Mesa3D projects in particular, and for the OpenGL API in general. José Fonseca The question is if those patents are US only or if they are valid in the rest of the world. Since they are software patents, they might not be. This would mean that development would have to be done outside the US and drivers could not be offered inside the US, except for research purposes of course. Marcus -- /\ | Dr. Marcus O.C. Metzler| | ||---| | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| http://www.metzlerbros.de/| \/ --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Gadgets, caffeine, t-shirts, fun stuff. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [Dri-devel] Microsoft IP claims over OpenGL
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 12:36:53AM +0100, José Fonseca wrote: | I would like to know your opinion about the influence this may have for | the DRI and Mesa3D projects in particular, and for the OpenGL API in | general. Of course Microsoft would love to see OpenGL disappear, and has been working toward that for many years. It's wise not to be naive about Microsoft's intentions. However, it's not clear yet whether this particular move represents a new threat. Vendors are required to notify the OpenGL ARB when they believe they have intellectual property claims on any feature that's being proposed to the ARB. (This is intended to prevent vendors from allowing a feature to be included in the standard, then blackmailing all the other vendors after they've shipped it.) At this point, that's all Microsoft has done. If they had a history of operating in good faith, then there'd be no great reason for concern. Unfortunately, the process of licensing intellectual property to other ARB vendors is not well-defined by the ARB bylaws. So Microsoft could cause problems by (a) delaying the licensing process so as to halt progress on new versions of OpenGL, (b) requiring unacceptable licensing terms (high royalties, cross-licensing of other intellectual property, use only under Windows, etc.), or (c) licensing to only a few selected vendors (excluding open source vendors, for example). So far Microsoft has been using tactic (a). You'll know it's time to worry when there are signs that Microsoft is using tactics (b) or (c). Allen --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Gadgets, caffeine, t-shirts, fun stuff. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
