-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/09/2011 02:29 AM, Rudolf Polzer wrote: > 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".
"Not invented here" has nothing to do with it. You did some fine work that will help the software rasterizers. > 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). It's like any sort of licensing. If I own some particular thing, I can license you to use it under any terms I want. It turns out that the licensing terms for the S3TC patents are *extremely* restrictive. Combine that with the licensing fees being the primary source of S3's income, and there can be only trouble. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk5Bs3IACgkQX1gOwKyEAw/TfACZAZEuY90UY5l6/oPt9btT7+0e ZCUAn3s5RuuESSMKdyZUImPUJlw2e3xL =5kZ0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
