On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 02:01:44AM -0700, Jose Fonseca wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 05:49:09AM -0700, Jose Fonseca wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > The suggestion however is to include a S2TC-like method with > > > > Mesa, to > > > > basically > > > > make sure that in the long run NO distro has no support for S3TC > > > > uploading, > > > > without requiring an extra decision in each distro. > > > > > > I wouldn't oppose bundling S2TC for software renderers, but > > > enabling S3TC decompression on hardware is an orthogonal matter, > > > which depends on the licensing terms between the IHV and S3. > > > > > > If you wanna fix this, convince IHVs to fully license the S3TC use > > > in their hardware for Linux. So far the only IHV that _seems_ to > > > have such wide cross-OS license is NVIDIA. > > > > > > I think it would be good to add a FAQ about this in the docs. But > > > I'm done with this stupid thread. I'll enjoy my vacation and stop > > > wasting time with this nonsense. > > > > In other words: you want the EXISTING support in Mesa to upload S3TC > > compressed > > textures (pre-compressed, not runtime compressed) to the hardware > > removed. > > I couldn't let this statements go unchallenged.. > > The option in question is disabled by default, and I don't agree this is > inducing in infringement in any way as we always highlighted the S3TC > pitfalls in the mailing lists, and the IHV's S3TC licensing terms have not > been disclosed, but I agree that at the very least we should better document > this option in docs/patents.txt, to avoid misunderstandings as you're having, > and yes, probably also have the option disabled by default with a configure > option, as we do with floating point textures, which the drivers may override > or not, as the breadth of S3TC license of the target hardware is known. > > Thanks for pointing this issue out, Rudolf. Thanks for playing devil's > advocate in a public forum, and forcing us to take a stricter stand on this > matter. I am confused though, because I thought you were trying to help the > Linux community, not the patent trolls.
I was trying to help the Linux communtiy, but apparently I failed. Looks like all this work I did was for nothing. Nothing is appreciated, all is "Not Invented Here". How else should I have brought this up? I still don't understand WHY this is an issue. Is US patent law really that retarded? I still can't believe this, as to me that would mean that Apache would have needed a patent license in order to transport GIF files back then (or at least, to assign the content type "image/gif" in the default config). Best regards, Rudolf Polzer _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
