Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Patches Published For Merging S3TC Library Into Mesa

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,816

    Default Patches Published For Merging S3TC Library Into Mesa

    Phoronix: Patches Published For Merging S3TC Library Into Mesa

    It's a slightly more interesting Sunday than usual. Besides working on a large file-system comparison (Linux 2.6.38 w/ EXT3, EXT4, XFS, JFS, Btrfs, etc) and new OpenBenchmarking.org features, there's an interesting development regarding the topic from earlier today about patented OpenGL support within Mesa. Not only has the email thread about integrating floating point textures support been resurrected, but another developer has now pushed patches that would integrate the S3TC texture compression library in Mesa while living behind the --enable-patented switch...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTE3OQ

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    241

    Default

    "Open"GL.

    Actually, I'm not very happy of the compile switch solution instead of external dlopen() libs, as it makes way more difficult for external repos to add support for patented features, which I would like to remind, are not such in most of the world.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r1348 View Post
    "Open"GL.
    Actually, I'm not very happy of the compile switch solution instead of external dlopen() libs, as it makes way more difficult for external repos to add support for patented features, which I would like to remind, are not such in most of the world.
    I was thinking this too, unless they make them into modules which are easy to build separately a merge would actually make it harder rather than easier for most people to aquire (assuming the distro doesn't compile it in.) Of course Gentoo users will be happy, and distros which don't cater to a US market.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    314

    Default

    Would it be safe to assume that people in the USA have a patent license to use (but not distribute) S3TC if they have an AMD/NVIDIA card and have ever used the proprietary driver with it?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grantek View Post
    Would it be safe to assume that people in the USA have a patent license to use (but not distribute) S3TC if they have an AMD/NVIDIA card and have ever used the proprietary driver with it?
    No. The software implementation is patent-encumbered, not just the hardware implementation.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    314

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Plombo View Post
    No. The software implementation is patent-encumbered, not just the hardware implementation.
    That's where the "proprietary driver" comes in - by purchasing a card you also purchase a license to use the proprietary driver, which includes the patented software implementation. I have no idea how software patent licenses transfer to an end user though. Is there anything regarding patent licenses in the proprietary driver EULAs?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Elsewhere
    Posts
    90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Plombo View Post
    No. The software implementation is patent-encumbered, not just the hardware implementation.
    I still don't understand/admit how a so called Open specification can have been tainted by software patents. Call that ClosedGL or don't-touch-it-GL instead.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    624

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grantek View Post
    Would it be safe to assume that people in the USA have a patent license to use (but not distribute) S3TC if they have an AMD/NVIDIA card and have ever used the proprietary driver with it?
    No. The S3TC license applies to a hw/sw combo.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    314

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marek View Post
    No. The S3TC license applies to a hw/sw combo.
    That could be the legal key I'm looking for, but where is the license transferred to the end user?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    446

    Default Agreed. This would force me to recompile the whole of Mesa!

    Quote Originally Posted by r1348 View Post
    Actually, I'm not very happy of the compile switch solution instead of external dlopen() libs, as it makes way more difficult for external repos to add support for patented features...
    Agreed. Instead of adding a small shared object into /usr/lib or /usr/lib64, I'd suddenly need to recompile Mesa everywhere.

    Gee, thanks.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •