Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 57 of 57

Thread: MLAA For Mesa Is Ready For Testing

  1. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Sure, you can ship it - though with only software support right now, it's not too useful. It should not break anything else.
    OK, added to my PPA:
    http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...460#post219460

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,101

    Default

    FWIW, the queue is now bound to hw drivers as well. Anyone want to test the color filters?

  3. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    FWIW, the queue is now bound to hw drivers as well. Anyone want to test the color filters?
    They works fine on my r300g.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    I'm not sure anyone noticed, but this MLAA implementation is nonfree software.

    In the license, it says this:

    + * Only for use in the Mesa project, this point 2 is filled by naming the
    + * technique Jimenez's MLAA in the Mesa config options.

    Which instantly disqualifies it from being free software or open source, and it also violates the Fedora requirements, and the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

    A free software-based distribution would have to disable this.

    It also contains an advertising clause which is an annoyance and GPLv2 incompatible (though an advertising clause is GPLv3 compatible).

    + * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the following statement:
    + *
    + * "Uses Jimenez's MLAA. Copyright (C) 2010 by Jorge Jimenez, Belen Masia,
    + * Jose I. Echevarria, Fernando Navarro and Diego Gutierrez."

    Another concern is that MLAA is basically part of DirectX from my understanding, and Microsoft is a patent troll. Fernando Navarro is a Microsoft employee.

    + * Copyright (C) 2010 Fernando Navarro (fernandn@microsoft.com

    The kind of project that uses the MIT X11 license is obviously unconcerned with free software or they'd use a license that isn't free to steal, but since this also doesn't qualify as open source, I'd be interested if a Mesa developer would comment on what the hell it is doing here exactly.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaemonFC View Post
    I'm not sure anyone noticed, but this MLAA implementation is nonfree software.

    In the license, it says this:

    + * Only for use in the Mesa project, this point 2 is filled by naming the
    + * technique Jimenez's MLAA in the Mesa config options.

    Which instantly disqualifies it from being free software or open source, and it also violates the Fedora requirements, and the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

    A free software-based distribution would have to disable this.

    It also contains an advertising clause which is an annoyance and GPLv2 incompatible (though an advertising clause is GPLv3 compatible).

    + * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the following statement:
    + *
    + * "Uses Jimenez's MLAA. Copyright (C) 2010 by Jorge Jimenez, Belen Masia,
    + * Jose I. Echevarria, Fernando Navarro and Diego Gutierrez."

    Another concern is that MLAA is basically part of DirectX from my understanding, and Microsoft is a patent troll. Fernando Navarro is a Microsoft employee.

    + * Copyright (C) 2010 Fernando Navarro (fernandn@microsoft.com

    The kind of project that uses the MIT X11 license is obviously unconcerned with free software or they'd use a license that isn't free to steal, but since this also doesn't qualify as open source, I'd be interested if a Mesa developer would comment on what the hell it is doing here exactly.
    Where did you get the idea that MLAA was part of DirectX? As far as I know, it was initially created by game developers for use on the PS3.

    Anyway, an attribution clause in the license doesn't bother me at all, and Mesa runs all sorts of proprietary code (usually games).

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Where did you get the idea that MLAA was part of DirectX? As far as I know, it was initially created by game developers for use on the PS3.

    Anyway, an attribution clause in the license doesn't bother me at all, and Mesa runs all sorts of proprietary code (usually games).
    My main concern was the "only for use in Mesa" line, which makes it nonfree and not open source.

    http://opensource.org/docs/osd

    5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

    The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
    The advertising clause is just annoying.

    Running proprietary code isn't a problem, linking to it is. Proprietary software like MLAA in Mesa probably doesn't violate their license, but it does introduce a PIECE OF MESA that is proprietary and should not be shipped by anyone seeking to make a free/open source system.

    As for DirectX, the people that developed it primarily did it for Microsoft so they could use it on Windows and XBOX 360.

    http://iryoku.com/mlaa/

    In which platforms does it run?

    We have implementations in DirectX 10, for PC, and XNA, for Xbox 360. It could run in DirectX 9 without problems, as we are not using DirectX 10 special features. It is coded as a regular pixel shader, that runs as a post-process over a color image (with optionally depth as input).
    Last edited by DaemonFC; 10-09-2011 at 01:50 AM.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,101

    Default

    Chill, if you read up on the story, they are university researchers from Spain, and initially did the work only on the PC & xbox via XNA. Only once they got more publicity did they get a proper xbox devkit.

    The history of MLAA itself is a research story too, up from Intel and Sony to Jimenez' group and onwards. No DX involved at any point in any official capacity.


    The clause would only affect you if you were to take the code onwards; which is the same as if you got the code from upstream. If having it in mesa bothers you, adding a disable option to the configure would be a 10-liner patch or so. In my opinion, granting the exception so that the effect could be used in Mesa easily was generous of the authors.


    Not sure if I qualify as a Mesa dev though

Posting Permissions

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