openSUSE Hobbled By Microsoft Patents

kripkenstein writes "openSUSE 10.2 no longer enables ClearType (which would improve the appearance of fonts). The reason given on the openSUSE mailing list for not enabling it is, 'this feature is covered by several Microsoft patents and should not be activated in any default build of the library.' As reported on and discussed, this matter may be connected to the Microsoft-Novell deal. If so, Novell should have received a license for the Microsoft patents, assuming the deal covered all relevant patents. Does the license therefore extend only to SUSE, but not openSUSE?"

Prior art

Steve Gibson pointed out decades-old prior art [grc.com] that would invalidate the Cleartype patent (if our patent system weren't corrupt) several years ago.

Re:Prior art

Steve Gibson pointed out decades-old prior art that would invalidate the Cleartype patent several years ago.

Indeed he did. Not that the idea itself merits a patent anyways. It is pretty obvious and shopuld not be patentable in the first place.

Re:Prior art

The funny thing is I just installed OpenSUSE 10.2 alpha 3 and the fonts look better than ever; if this is how they look without cleartype, who needs it?

Re:Prior art

I couldn't agree more.

I've never found cleartype to be helpful either, I much rather not have cleartype as on every single display device I've enabled it on it looks like crap. I've tried it on high and low end crts and high and low end lcds, it all looks much better (and more readable) without cleartype.

Re:Prior art

Any time I've turned on cleartype on a fresh install of windows, my first impression has always been that it just made fonts look "blurrier", for lack of a better word.

However, after using it for a day or two, turning it off is absolutely painful. IMHO, it really DOES make text MUCH easier to read on an LCD.

-Tom

Re:Prior art

There's a difference between being able to find prior art for something, and being able to afford to go to court to defend yourself against a patent infringement lawsuit. Sadly, the gulf between the two positions is pretty wide. Maybe there should be an appeal process for patent awards? If you can show that a patent affects you in some way, and shouldn't have been granted for some reason (eg prior art), you could appeal against the patent award and attempt to get it rescinded in a quicker and cheaper process than a full-on court case?

Re:Prior art

I'm afraid the decades-old Apple II and IBM PC is not prior art. Pixels are either on or off for Apple II and IBM PC's CGA displays, so they apparently don't (and can't) care too much about color fringing. Sub-pixel font rendering on LCD screen deals with 256 shades for each sub-pixel, and the emphasis is on how to adjust sub-pixel brightness to reduce color fringing.

This is explained in Steve Gibson's Turning Theory into Practice [grc.com]. Sub-pixel font rendering is not the same as sub-pixels on CGA displays. The ideas are related, but the plumbing is different.

Perhaps I'm misleading in saying that CGA is not prior art of ClearType. I haven't actually read the patents of ClearType, so I obviously cannot tell; I'm basing my claim solely on Steve's webpage alone.

Re:Prior art

The Apple II didn't have a CGA. Colors were generated by dot-timing the luminance signal into an NTSC composite monitor (read, TV), faking out the color decoding in the monitor. Subpixel rendering was done by reversing that to choose the appropriate color to generate the desired dot timing. On a monochrome monitor these showed up as higher-resolution dots than the nominal pixels in display memory.

Go look at the circuit diagram for an Apple II, for pete's sake. It's not that complicated, maybe a dozen or so 74-series chips plus the memory and CPU.

Clear type uses exactly the same idea -- pick the color to activate the desired combination of R, G and/or B stripes in the LCD pixel -- i.e. activate the desired sequence of horizontal dots by color choice.

Novell is the Judas Goat.

I think Novell has become an wholly owned subsidiary of MSFT and is being used for the express purpose of setting up precedents and creating more and more FUD. I have seen a version of anti-aliasing and sub-pixel addressing [grc.com] way back when in, of all places, grc.com.

Re:Novell is the Judas Goat.

Judas Goat - used at an abbatoir to lull animals into a false sense of security.

Re:It is about precedents

In my opinion, open/free Linux is still 5-10 years behind Windows and OSX in terms of desktop functionality ...

Yeah, a friend of mine has a Windows 95 machine, and I tried it out recently. Man, I was BLOWN AWAY. I've been wasting productivity on my Gentoo and Ubuntu machines, when all this time Windows 95 just makes it much easier. I mean, it looks and functions better, and everything just works. My friend showed me how to take all my LaTeX files (100 or so) for my book, with all the revision history in Git, and convert it all to Microsoft Word. Wow! Productivity SQUARED! After watching my reaction, my firend slapped me on the head (really hard) and exclaimed, "It's the APPS, stupid!"

Prior art?

I have not been to GRC.com for a long time, I quickly grabbed the URL and posted it here in another thread. Looks like that site cites a long list of prior art. [grc.com] Makes the OpenSUSE's decision even more suspect.

Well, that's it then.

No more Suse Linux on my servers. I know that subpixel rendering has no impact on server applications, but I now consider that distribution rogue.

Now it is clear

Novell is the new SCO

anti-aliasing makes me need glasses

That might be a good thing(tm). In many cases I prefer non anti-aliased fonts. I have a nice LCD with a DVI connection for a clear picture, then I'm supposed to fuzzy it up? Anti-aliasing lakes me think I need glasses in many cases.

Sheldon

Re:anti-aliasing makes me need glasses

IIRC different displays may have different order of R,G,B component pixels which may require a reversed antialiasing pattern (as if the screen was flipped upside-down). Though the effect is subtle it also shows a red and/or blue fringe. Though that may not be what you are talking about.

It's FreeType for a start!

This is complete nonsense written by someone that is clearly clueless and forwarded by an editor that is equally clueless. This is a FreeType library setting for compiling programs (not ClearType!). It is the same for every Linux distribution as it is the default setting for the development library. It has never been enabled by default.

Exactly

Cleartype is just sub-pixel AA which existed long before MS ever used it for font rendering. Bytecode type hinting is patented by (IIRC) Apple, it is usually disabled in Freetype and and an alternative (auto-hinting) method used instead.

Apples and oranges, the bug reporter is confused or trolling.

Of Course it isn't covered...

...which looks worse? The free OS not having the feature enabled by default due to an admission that it is Microsoft patented tech, or having it covered in the agreement so that nobody sees that there "is" Microsoft patented tech in linux. Guess which one 'ol Bally just loves.

Suse vs Open Suse

I put a store-bought version of Suse on my daughter's machine and everything was good. We upgraded her mobo and downloaded the 64 bit version of Open Suse. There are a myriad of niggling little details that don't quite work the same. The commercial version of Suse was a joy. The other one isn't. We're switching to Ubuntu.

It's only the filtering

AFAICT, subpixel rendering is not disabled, only the 5-tap filter that's supposed to reduce colour fringes. See http://www.grc.com/cttech.htm [grc.com]. Apparently this is one of the things Microsoft has patented, and I haven't seen any "prior art" for this specific technique. In my humble opinion disabling the filter is not much of a loss as it just makes fonts look fuzzier.

Re:It's only the filtering

So, Microsoft has patented blurring text?

I don't want to pay M$ everytime I have a couple of beers....

Hidden warning

This as it seems, is yet another legal puns MS has up its sleeves.MS struck a deal with Novell months back, which obviously created a fury among free software zealots.Now this seems to be a Red signal for Linux users, who uses OpenSuse or any other free Linux distribution, as it implies IMO _you_ being a non SUSE(and means even OpenSUSE i guess) users are infringing on MS's so called intellectual property.

Is this the start of the hide and seek of infringement legalities?

Lets hope SUSE understand this can be just the beginning. Novell people should put in some thinking into not getting pawned once again by MS.

Whatever i am better off without them on my Edgy Ubuntu machine. :)

~psr

Freetype library is GPL

As a result, if you hold a license for a patent that is required to redistribute/sell Freetype (or any piece of software covered by the GPL), then, to comply with the GPL you have two options you must EITHER: (1) not distribute the software, OR (2) the patent license must permit anyone's free use

The relevant GPL section is the preamble To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all. , and under Section 7 of the GNU General Public License: For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

This means for instance, that Novell would not be free to provide users of SuSE the benefit of a patent license to use a certain feature of a GPL'ed library or software program, and deny that feature to openSuSE users.

Typical 'Bend Over' Novell

There's obviously quite a bit of prior art to Cleartype, but Novell as an open source company does not want to stand up and defend itself and its software from it (as well as Red Hat actually). I rather suspect both Red Hat and especially Novell are using the non-issue of patents to try and give their so called enterprise distributions an actual selling point.

The question really is, why was it deemed OK to enable it before, and suddenly it has become a big deal where it is disabled?

Additionally, there seems to be some confusion of the Microsoft/Novell deal. The patent agreement would not be legal with the terms of the GPL, rather Microsoft gave a covenant not to sue to Novell's customers and promised to be nice to OpenSuse's users. Whether that would cover this, I don't know.

Same with fedora

Fedora disables the truetype bytecode interpreter and subpixel hinting features of the freetype library. There is an "autohinting" system used instead, but in my experience it looks much worse, compared to recompiling freetype with the patented features enabled.

Can we now use the GPL?

The GPL is very clear on one point: if you know your software infringes on some patent, you can't distribute it, even if you have a deal with the patent holder enabling you to do that*. Can Novell now be prosecuted? Is that code GPLed (it seems to be KDE, so it probably is)?

* Unless that deal is extended to everybody that touches the code.

never so

As far as I can read, it has never been enabled. It needs to be enabled at compile time, which the ansvar to the linked bug report clearly states by c&p of the relevant info from the FreeType lib.

This is a complete non-issue and has been known for a while. It predates the Novell/MS agreement.

Re:never so

Mod parent up.

The main developer of FreeType decided to disable the filter [mail-archive.com] in September. The Novell deal was later and had nothing to do with this.

Nothing New for OpenSuse

I gave up on Open Suse when the 10.0 version came out, and they started removing stuff from the standard release. They first took out support for the nVidia drivers, then some of the wireless drivers, forcing me to find and install them both manually. So, whenever they get a little antsy about something, they remove it. As much as I really like Suse, I prefer something that just works out of the box, and doesn't make me jump through hoops just to use my own computer.

If I wanted to do *that*, I'd install Vista!

This is completely clean -

openSUSE does not ship code which is known to infringe patents or IP, so the patents either get invalidated (lengthy and expensive) or the code disabled / removed. This policy is not affected by the NOVL/MSFT deal at all; quite the contrary, it has always been Novell/SUSE's policy to not ship such code.

Just like openSUSE doesn't ship infringing Linux drivers, or Debian not shipping certain licenses.

What the heck is the fuzz about?

Re:This is completely clean -

openSUSE does not ship code which is known to infringe patents or IP

Funny, my copy includes Mono.

Note to Ron Hovsepian

Ron, If you want to know how similar arrangements have panned out, you may be interested in viewing the graphic video: Boa Constrictor Eats Bird Alive [youtube.com]

This is what I like about Linux

I think this makes for a pretty good example of one of the strengths of something like Linux. If you find your distro moving into directions you don't like, you can leave pretty easily and try another distro. They're all Linux, just wrapped up differently, and so if a distro decides to pull some shit like this, they'll only be hurting themselves because there's no real lock-in to any one distribution.

Microsoft are trying to cripple Linux using traditional methods, but all they can really cripple is openSUSE due to the Novell partnership. It's not like MS can take over EVERY SINGLE DISTRO, particularly the homegrown stuff. A good example of the power of choice I think.

Re:This is what I like about Linux

Do you have any examples of how openSUSE has been crippled by Microsoft? It has already been pointed out further up that this article was _clearly_ either written by someone trying to spread FUD or by someone who just isn't very knowledgable (subpixel hinting is a freetype setting that the freetype developers themselves suggest disabling for distros). It is quite funny to see so many people jumping on the bandwagon, attempting to find 'omgz evil' in Novell because they made a business deal with Microsoft; obviously a deal that turns out to have done them more bad than good in the eyes of the community.

Clear-Type replacement

They could just use this replacement, which is not patented:
http://oyhus.no/SubLCD.html [oyhus.no]

the openSUSE team did the right thing

IMHO, they did the right thing. One of openSUSE's goals is to be completely open source software (hence the 'open' in 'openSUSE'). Even if they may have the right to use them due to the MS/Novell patent deal, they do not want the distro encumbered with non-OSS software in the default install. Fedora 7 also disables this feature.

If you want a distro protected (encumbered) by MS patents, buy SUSE Enterprise.

Novell - Just brilliant

It really doesn't matter if this is related to the patent deal with Microsoft or not. The damage is done by the mere perception that Novell is aligned with Redmond.

This whole deal is to IT was Iraq is to foreign policy: A bad idea implemented without a clear exit strategy.

Unless the goal was to drive users to Ubuntu. In that case it's a brilliant plan.

Re:Novell - Just brilliant

The damage is done by the mere perception that Novell is aligned with Redmond.

I won't disagree with that statement, but that's no excuse for this ridiculous story posted to Slashdot. For all of the griping around here about other companies' FUD, this is basically pure FUD itself. Alas, it's not an isolated case. It's too bad so many people read this site - it's a very poor source of information if you just scan the front page.

Cleartype

I have win98 and i see not difference between font smoothing on/off.
I bet it all depends on the font,and only serif fonts like Times New Roman could be enjoying this feature.

Um, didn't Linux already fix this?

I seem to recall about 10 years ago font copyrights, etc, and the ClearType issue came up regarding Linux. The question then was whether it was OK to do *something* like this, or include fonts, etc, in OSS files and/or SW. Anyone remember the details?

Mark my words...the legal war cometh...

M$FT is simply using openSUSE here as a tool to prove that Linux violates patents (I don't believe this to be true). The more that Novell disables due to Microsoft patents, the more you can be sure that such disabling will be pointed to in the major legal war coming soon. This is the equivalent of troop movement...small pockets of M$FT troops are being moved into strategic areas near Linux's borders...they're hiding out in farmhouses and covered up with bales of hay, but they are indeed there. It's only a matter of time before they jump up, yell "Righteousness and truth be damned...", and begin the attack.

Fathers, gather your weapons now. Board up your windows and doors. Make sure your cellars are concealed and livable, so that your wives and daughters will be comfortable. The War to End All Wars is upon us, and it's our obligation to join the cause and fight the dread beast Microsoft. I fear for our ancestors if we do not.

The first step? Abandon openSUSE. They have been compromised, tainted and brainwashed beyond recovery. Best to put a bullet in their brain and save whatever honor is left in their history. Any among us who refuse to do so should follow the same fate.

Novell hasn't received any patent licenses

"As reported on and discussed, this matter may be connected to the Microsoft-Novell deal. If so, Novell should have received a license for the Microsoft patents, assuming the deal covered all relevant patents. Does the license therefore extend only to SUSE, but not openSUSE?"

The Microsoft-Novell deal only protects their customers, not the companies themselves. If Novell violates a MS patent, they can be sued by MS; the deal doesn't change that scenario in any way.

This is a good thing

I don't care if every computer in the country gets nuked to enforce IP law. I'm for whatever it takes to wake people up, force their hand, and resolve the issue once and for all. Maybe then we'll know the public's true opinion on the matter. They're for it now because they're not aware of its effects. Incidences like these will help clear things up for them.

Those Patents should expire soon (already have? )

When were the cleartype patents filed? Patents only last 17 years.

Nice Headline!

openSUSE hobbled by patents??

yeah, right, and my access to your wallet is hobbled by those pesky anti-mugging laws.. geez.

Windows font rendering is crap anyway, go FreeType

I always find font rendering in Windows to be really bad anyway, whether on a CRT or LCD, with or without ClearType. The only decent setting is with all antialiasing turned off. Maybe that's why so many people seem to dislike antialiasing.

FreeType - with no patent-infringing algorithms enabled - looks much better than Windows and MacOS X on both high- and low-resolution LCD displays and with subpixel rendering enabled.

Licenses.

Just to clarify the thesis of the post.

Novell has not received any licenses to any patents, and neither has SUSE, nor OpenSUSE.

The Microsoft-Novell agreement is about not suing customers over any potential patent infringement.

Since OpenSUSE is a community effort, and it is used by people that might not be customers of Novell, removing code that is known to infringe on a patent is the correct thing to do (same policy applies to Mono).

SuSE always did this even before Novell

As long as I can remember, and I have used SuSE since version 7, SuSE always provided some non-free programs and packages along with their distributions. These non-free programs and packages were not enabled/installed by default, and the user had to manually select them for install. All this does is make sure the user is informed about any possible implications for using such non-free programs and packages, and it is up to the user to take necessary steps to ensure that the user is legally protected in case they chose to use any of these programs and packages. This is nothing but a precaution for the interest of the users of SuSE and also to prevent SuSE from getting any cease and desist letters.

ClearType patent invalid...

Subpixel rendering was covered by Apple][ patents decades before. Why SuSE would bother disabling ClearType is beyond me.

http://www.grc.com/ctwho.htm [grc.com]

http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9812/08/clea rtype.idg/ [cnn.com]

novell feels the heat

Today they changed the status of the 259718 bug - see bugzilla.novell.com.
If you're not an employee you won't have access ;-)

Novell explains its position

Hi: I'm a PR guy at Novell. I've posted Novell's explanation of this situation on our blog here: http://www.novell.com/prblogs/?p=318 [novell.com] Thanks. - Bruce

Re:Patent or Copyright?

Nobody is claiming to have invented, or patented, a font. At least read the summary if you're not going to read the article.

Correction. AA support in Windows.

Windows has had AA text in the following formats.

  Right Click (or Right Menu Key) -> Properties -> Settings Tab -> Tick "Smooth Edges of Screen Fonts".

WinXP - ClearType fonts supported (at least on Pro) - get a control panel applet from msdn/microsoft.com to change settings. HW support via alpha blending.

WinXP Tablet Edition - Support of 90 degree rotation e.g. aliasing in Y instead of X (screens mounted portrait)... I think I'm right on this.

Vista - more of the same I guess!

YMMV - It's been a while since I mucked with Windows GDI Drivers.

Re:I have a question...

Subpixel font smoothing has been in WinXP since the start.

Patent.

It's not the fonts that are in question, it's the method by which they're rendered on a screen.

Re:I have a question...

I am not familiar with the history of the clear type patents etc., but I do know that no version of Windows has ever had font-smoothing until Vista rolled around.

Win 3.1 had 256 Palette Anti-Aliased fonts in 1992, provided by drivers from ATI and MS. (Basically as long as TrueType has been in Windows, Anti-Aliasing has been available.)

Win95/Win98 - Via IE4/Plus Pack and on Win98, Windows9x also had anti-aliased font technology. The 'Font Smoothing' setting was not enabled by default, so a lot of idiots never thought it existed.

Win2k - Also had Font Smoothing (Anti-Aliasing), even though again it was not enabled by default.

WinCE was the first OS to ship with ClearType (The MS PDA OS)

WinXP - Shipped with 'Font Smoothing' Enabled with 'ClearType' available as an option that users could turn on. PS ClearType is more than Color based Font AA, as the patents on it are dealing with font hinting filters that keep the text from having bleeding colors or blurry edges. Hence why fonts on different multiple color background properly AA with no color halos or greyscaling.

Vista - Ships with ClearType Enabled by Default. The Vista Font Engine is now 3D GPU assisted, but produces basically the same ClearType results as XP. WPF applications in Vista do get slightly newer and higher quality ClearType rendering.
(Vista drivers are inherently smarter so that non-typical LCD pixel order and CRTs automatically use the best setting for the Monitor, where in XP, the user had to 'Fine Tune' this setting themselves.)

Whereas Linux and Macintosh has used smoothed pixels for as long as I can remember.

Is this clear type, and if so -- What has changed?


Um, Macs didn't get native Font Anti-Aliasing until System 8.5, released in 1998. (Several years after it was available in Windows) There were a few third party utilities that enabled Anti-Aliasing on Macs prior to this, but they were not universally used or supported throughout the OS and applications, where on Windows, all TrueType fonts were anti-aliased no matter what application or part of the OS used them. (An example of one these Mac utilities was "SmoothType")

As for Linux, Font Anti-Aliasing has not always been available either, especially before it was available on Windows, since Linux did not yet 'fully' exist.

So I have no idea why you think Windows never had AA Fonts, but since I have been using it since 1992, I can pretty much assure you that you are very mistaken.

Re:I for one...

I for one patent the welcoming of overlords. Now pay up!

Re:the only solution is to drop SuSE

If Novell is forced to punt, after all the work they put into Linux, will anyone else be willing to risk tying their future to Linux afterward?

I've wondered, ever since Novell announced their plans to migrate to Linux, if the true roadblock to success wouldn't be the OSS community itself. There is a whiff of elitism in the OSS ranks that seems to want Linux to always be reserved for 'the right people'. Every time I start to get over that feeling I'm forced to look at a MAN page and it all comes back. There is a contingent inside Linux that does not want it to be user-friendly, or common in the business world, or used by for-profit companies.

If the OSS community torpedoes Novell, what do you think that will do to the long term prospects of Linux becoming an accepted alternative to Windows in the Enterprise? I'm sure that many do not care or would be happy to see Novell and then Linux fail in the competitive market.