Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: S3TC For Mesa Is Talked About Some More

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,193

    Default S3TC For Mesa Is Talked About Some More

    Phoronix: S3TC For Mesa Is Talked About Some More

    Discussions surrounding S3TC Texture Compression support for mainline Mesa (right now it's an external library) is becoming an increasingly common occurrence. Newer games and OpenGL applications depend upon S3TC support and open-source developers are unable to provide "out of the box" support due to patent concerns...

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    191

    Default

    finally, someone who has a fucking clue!
    lawyers will always say "there is a risk" because world is full of assholes who would abuse legal system as they abuse law enforcement system to screw you if they want even if you just standing still. sometimes you just have to take that risk which comes with job. unfortunately, Zack is on corporate job and it's corporate risk which comes first, of course he would say that. but if we talking about public OSS project and there is no detailed public info about that risk - it's just scaremongering and FUD.

    say, tomorrow patch would materialise that connects libsquish to mesa. will it be merged ? will libtxc_dxtn have code improvements, new releases and all official freedesktop support ? everyone sure that incorporating that code in mesa and only providing driconf switch ("disabled" by default) is not good enough ? if yes, it's enabled by default when library is present, right ?
    maybe external library from non-free repository is not that bad in theory but how it came that way so its support was abandon for ages where it even lost hosting ?

    Gordon said that distros now treat mesa as if it were "good enough". i say he's right but it's lesser evil in comparison how they treated it as useless garbage with "glxinfo" being its most useful part. now glxinfo is in separate tarball and mesa is not useless, let's hope they will find balance and hopefully support libtxc_dxtn or libsquish or whatever to render those fucking compressed textures.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,199

    Default

    I very much agree with the comments on Zack's blog. Why is there no comment from any of the "officials" on the US-only status of this patent?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,711

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    I very much agree with the comments on Zack's blog. Why is there no comment from any of the "officials" on the US-only status of this patent?

    Many graphic devs are employed by US companies so this probably complicates things a bit.

    The only thing that needs to be done is to make it easy to activate the features.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    .ca
    Posts
    405

    Default

    The clowns that own those patents should give them to the OSI or pledge not to sue OSS.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    It's simply that you can't reconcile Free Software with patents.
    Gotta call bullshit on that one. Linux has many patented items in it's kernel. It is a matter if the patent holder will allow a 'free' solution to be implemented.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    114

    Default

    It's simply that you can't reconcile Free Software with patents.
    Talk to hand, then say that to the FreeType project with a straight face.
    You just can't add what amounts to arbitrary restrictions to your software and claim freedom.
    The ones adding restrictions is your legislation and patent holders, not developers/submitters. If China decides to ban IM clients that don't spy on their users, will distros remove them because they're now illegal to distribute in some legislations, despite developers placing no restrictions of their own on the software?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut,USA
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Gotta call bullshit on that one. Linux has many patented items in it's kernel. It is a matter if the patent holder will allow a 'free' solution to be implemented.
    The only things that ae patented are certain firmware blobs that may have been included in the Linux tree, but these can be stripped out by a build-time argument

  9. #9

    Default

    may be a bit of a dumb question...

    but isn't S3TC owned by Via now?

    Has anybody suggested to Via that maybe the best way they can show they are serious about Open-Source development is to make the S3 patents available to Open-Source developers under an Open-License, or under terms allowing the royalty free usage there-of?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeepDayze View Post
    The only things that ae patented are certain firmware blobs that may have been included in the Linux tree, but these can be stripped out by a build-time argument
    That's not true at all. MS has already successfully sued companies over using FAT support in the linux kernel.

    And the firmware blobs would more likely violate copyright law than patents - at least that's my take. I don't think they actually violate either.

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
  •