The Direct3D 10/11 State Tracker Is Still Around

[phoronix]

Phoronix: The Direct3D 10/11 State Tracker Is Still Around

Last September there was the release of a Direct3D 10/11 state tracker for Gallium3D. This natively implemented Microsoft's graphics API from DirectX for the latest versions 10 and 11 with Gallium3D Linux graphics drivers. While it sounded quite enticing when the code was first released, there hasn't been much activity since that point...

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

[allquixotic]

What are the legal issues surrounding the distribution (in binary and source form) of a Direct3d state tracker, if any? Surely Microsoft has patented and trademarked it to hell and back.

[calim]

There's a bit more. I actually added SM4 (in addition to TGSI) as source language for the nvc0 shader backend to get tessellation shaders easily, and I've finally made my GTX470 spit out a tessellated triangle now.

Not sure how much further I can take it though, really depends on how much trouble I run into on my way to Heaven. Unigine, I mean.

[3vi1]

What are the legal issues surrounding the distribution (in binary and source form) of a Direct3d state tracker, if any? Surely Microsoft has patented and trademarked it to hell and back.

Why would there be legal issues surround the distribution? The only thing it has in common is an API, not any MS code. The DMCA has a specific exemption for implementation of APIs for interoperability. It's no different from Wine implementing the Windows APIs, eh?

[RealNC]

The DMCA

The DMCA does not cover patents.

[3vi1]

The DMCA does not cover patents.

And exactly which patents do you think an implementation might violate? Wine has a DX9/10 implementation in software already (updates for 10 have been landing the last few days). Anything that's not pre-existing in OpenGL is probably going to be in the realm of obvious.

Please don't help the trolls spread FUD.

[RealNC]

And exactly which patents do you think an implementation might violate? Wine has a DX9/10 implementation in software already (updates for 10 have been landing the last few days). Anything that's not pre-existing in OpenGL is probably going to be in the realm of obvious.

Please don't help the trolls spread FUD.

I'm just stating a fact. The trolls mentioned patents, and you mentioned the DMCA. And I mentioned that the DMCA does not cover patents, because it doesn't.

[elanthis]

D3D is patented the same way OpenGL is. e.g., floating point textures in D3D is going to be just as much of a non-starter as it is in OpenGL.

[3vi1]

I'm just stating a fact. The trolls mentioned patents, and you mentioned the DMCA. And I mentioned that the DMCA does not cover patents, because it doesn't.

The bit I mentioned about the DMCA was because the original post was vague as to where he thought the legal threat would come from (trademarks?), and he specifically mentioned "distribution", which is generally more closely tied to copyright. The rest of my sentences were dismissing the patent argument.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying they wouldn't try it. I just don't see how they could win... unless... they file... here in east Texas. Auuughhhh!!!!

[3vi1]

D3D is patented the same way OpenGL is. e.g., floating point textures in D3D is going to be just as much of a non-starter as it is in OpenGL.

I must be reading that wrong. Haven't they both support floating point textures for like seven years now?