Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 55

Thread: It's Official: Mesa 8.0 With OpenGL 3.0

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    Whatever happened with this: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...item&px=OTkxMQ ???
    Anybody hear of any progress in this investigation?
    I am sorry. I have forgotten about it. It would be interesting to know if it actually gets ruled invalid. It's very rare that that tactic actually works. It's like pleading temporary insanity. It's only used in less then 1% of the cases and when it is used it's usually last ditch effort and only wins a tiny fraction of the time.


    I have offered a few times to use something different if someone can come up with a good catch-all word that covers trade secrets, patents, copyrighted code, along with anything similar that I might have forgotten to mention. So far I have received a few rants back but nothing I could actually use in a sentence

    Obvious terms like "secrets" don't work because we're really talking about a mix of "secrets" and "legally protected" stuff. The best I could come up with was "secret sauce" but that's kinda hokey too.

    You can't.

    Trademarks have nothing to do with secrets or keeping things restricted. It is just to document you produced a certain item and nobody else can claim that their knock-off products was created by you.

    Copyrights are not about keeping anything secret either. It's about restricting the types of copying you can do of certain, specific, and abritrary types of goods.

    Patents are not about keeping secrets. In fact they are suppose to do the entire opposite. You are suppose to be putting your inventions into the public domain in order to get a patent in the first place.

    What is more trademarks are not suppose to stop people from copying your products. Patents are not about copying either. Only copyrights are about copying. With patents you violate patents whether or not you invented something independently yourself and you just happen to accidentally do something covered by a patent or you intentionally copied a patent document it is not relevent, except in when awarding damages. It makes no difference if you copied or it was independently created.

    The fact that people can dream up scenarios were any of these three things can be used to create secrecy or restricted access to information goes to show how fundamentally broke and corrupt the very concept of IP is.

    Now the only truly legitimate form of IP, in my opinion, is going to be trade secrets. People sign NDAs to work on stuff they need to follow those NDAs. If a corporation wants to keep something secret they should be able to. However if somebody is able to reverse engineer their product and use that knowledge then that is 100% OK also. It's all fair game.

    The only legit restrictions that people should be required to follow are ones that they volunteered for and agreed to follow.


    Now with video cards you also have additional things like DMCA... which is so much screaming heaping bullshit I cannot even begin to fathom. Ostensibly it's about piracy, but it is in fact a cold, very purposeful, completely deliberate and malicious (from a free market standpoint) set of laws and punishments designed to leverage copyright to provide the large international media corporations (and friends) the ability to dictate software and hardware design for the sole purpose of maintaining market dominance and controlling distribution channels. You obey 'Hollywood' or the government will shut you down.
    Last edited by drag; 01-10-2012 at 05:04 PM.

  2. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    I have offered a few times to use something different if someone can come up with a good catch-all word that covers trade secrets, patents, copyrighted code, along with anything similar that I might have forgotten to mention. So far I have received a few rants back but nothing I could actually use in a sentence
    "Imaginary property"?

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaemonFC View Post
    I'll expand. "You can't implement OpenGL, because it is the IP of SGI, Khronos, etc.".

    OK, you can't call it OpenGL because that is a TRADEMARK. Mesa doesn't call itself OpenGL and never has. Big companies like to use the term IP so you can't guess what it is they own.

    If a company says you can't use their marks, then you could avoid the legal problems by just not using their marks. If they say "that is our IP", you don't know what they mean. Is it copyright on their code? Is it a trade mark? Did they patent something? Who knows. That's the point of the confusing and malicious term of "Intellectual Property".

    OK, so your problem isn't really with the term itself, you just want a whole lot more detail. Put bluntly, you're not going to get that from Engineering folks, only from Legal.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaemonFC View Post
    Everyone who uses that term does so with the deliberate and malicious intent of confusing the listener.
    Simply not true, at least in my case. I don't know about other people.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaemonFC View Post
    It's not about expedience, it is about confusion. How much less expedient is it to say "trademark", "patent", or "copyright"? it might take a few more seconds but it clarifies what your'e talking about. If you want to be obtuse, you will say "IP".
    Again, not true. It's extremely rare that a single issue is the problem. I though you didn't like the choice of catch-all term, but what you're saying is that you want individual legal issues split out in detail. I can't do that, and I doubt that engineering folks in any company would be able to do that. The options are "provide as much information as we can and no more" or "don't say anything".

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    574

    Default

    Microsoft = Office Suite + DirectX. This is enough to explain why Linux will never get into the Desktop Market.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bulletxt View Post
    Microsoft = Office Suite + DirectX. This is enough to explain why Linux will never get into the Desktop Market.
    OSS = Linux + LibreOffice + Mesa. How does your statement preclude Linux from the Desktop Market?

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bulletxt View Post
    Microsoft = Office Suite + DirectX. This is enough to explain why Linux will never get into the Desktop Market.
    I believe this statement should be corrected to

    "Microsoft > Linux. This is enough to explain why Linux will never get into the Desktop Market."

    Microsoft > Linux, can actually be used an explanation for its complete and utter failure on the desktop front. Just look at the math. See the ">". It explains everything.
    Microsoft can equal whatever it wants all day. Doesn't matter. Its all about the ">".

    Look at this!
    > > =

    This proves there is no hope. No hope for open source. No hope for anything at all.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>BRICK WALL! - end of universe

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jltyper View Post
    I believe this statement should be corrected to

    "Microsoft > Linux. This is enough to explain why Linux will never get into the Desktop Market."

    Microsoft > Linux, can actually be used an explanation for its complete and utter failure on the desktop front. Just look at the math. See the ">". It explains everything.
    Microsoft can equal whatever it wants all day. Doesn't matter. Its all about the ">".

    Look at this!
    > > =

    This proves there is no hope. No hope for open source. No hope for anything at all.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>BRICK WALL! - end of universe
    :Facepalm:

    You missed his point entirely, as did the poster above you. The problem is not one of better or worse the problem is one of market acceptance. To be blunt MS Office is basically ubiquitous, until we can make an ODF based office suite the dominant one people are going to be using a Microsoft endorsed OS (Windows or OS X), and DirectX being the most popular api for writing games against providing most of the hardware abstraction means that developers are going to be trained on that api and not necessarily proficient in any others which means that at least AAA games are going to tend to stick to being Windows.

    Edit: Ironically OS X by not being DirectX compatible is helping us with the DirectX issue
    Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 01-10-2012 at 11:49 PM.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdx View Post
    Bullshit. Go troll somewhere else you fucking cunt.
    Troll? You are too ignorant and out of the "commercial and business" world to understand my words.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sandain View Post
    Oh wise sage drag, why don't you explain how you believe patents and patent law really work, because I obviously know jack squat.

    The chance of US5956431 being marked as invalid is low considering the past history of this patent, however I would have to argue that the chance of this happening is not nil. The legal mess that is the smart phone industry is our best bet for this to happen.

    I agree that software patents need to die, but I don't see patent reform going anywhere with the current political environment here in the US. Besides boycotting pro-software patent companies, how do you suggest we go about fighting software patents?
    Do what VLC do: Setup the main "office" for the project outside of 'Murica.
    VLC is stationed in France, and by that autobypassing most annoying patents. They also get some protection for being a non profit organisation, something other projects should do.
    MESA could just move nationality, and bypass the entire problem.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by del_diablo View Post
    Do what VLC do: Setup the main "office" for the project outside of 'Murica.
    VLC is stationed in France, and by that autobypassing most annoying patents. They also get some protection for being a non profit organisation, something other projects should do.
    MESA could just move nationality, and bypass the entire problem.
    Mesa has already implemented the patent-covered code, so that wouldn't change anything. It's the distros, like Red Hat and Canonical, that are choosing not to ship that code.

Posting Permissions

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