1187477
story
Comments: 167 +- Linux: SGI Releases OpenGL As Free Software on Friday September 19 2008, @11:01AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicsoftware.gif); width:65px; height:65px;
software
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topiclinux.gif); width:60px; height:70px;
linux
StoneLion writes "Since its release, the OpenGL code that is responsible for 3-D acceleration on GNU/Linux has been running on licenses that were accepted by neither the Free Software Foundation (FSF) nor the Open Source Initiative. Today, however, the FSF has announced that the licenses in question have been rewritten, the problems resolved, and the code freed. Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF, says, 'This represents a huge gift to the free software community.'"
Related Stories
We were happily married for eight months. Unfortunately, we were married
for four and a half years.
-- Nick Faldo
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
Good news! (Score:2, Insightful)
Great news for the community. Now lets hope this helps redirect resources, so I can get those laptop drivers fixed, and then I can finally sleep/hibernate properly!
Re:Good news! (Score:5, Insightful)
Great news for the community. Now lets hope this helps redirect resources, so I can get those laptop drivers fixed, and then I can finally sleep/hibernate properly!
I've never heard of ACPI depending on an API for generating polygons, but hey whateva.
Parent
Re:Good news! (Score:5, Funny)
What are you talking about? Hibernation requires you to draw two large black polygons to cover your screen to save power.
Parent
Re:Good news! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously (Score:5, Informative)
I can get those laptop drivers fixed, and then I can finally sleep/hibernate properly!
I've never heard of ACPI depending on an API for generating polygons, but hey whateva.
In short ACPI will take care to shut down and turn back on the power consumption of the PCIe bus. But on wake up, the *graphic drivers* will take care that everything, including the content of the graphical memory, etc. return to the exact same state, as if the 3D application running where never interrupted.
Giving an opensource OpenGL 3.x leaves more time for the developers for other parts of the drivers : to develop a nice DRI2/TTM/GEM underneath fixing low level problems like sleep/wake-up among other.
Parent
How does this effect the OpenGL patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are still a number of patents covering portions of the OpenGL functions. Does this grant a license for use or are we stuck with partial implementations?
Re:How does this effect the OpenGL patents? (Score:5, Informative)
IT completely removes the patent stuff from the license. So you can redistribute the code even if it breaks patents, but then of course your subject to the patent laws of your country
Parent
SGI's press release is pretty awesome too (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.sgi.com/company_info/newsroom/press_releases/2008/september/opengl.html
Free Software Foundation and Khronos Group Both Herald New License of Industry Standard Graphics Software
SUNNYVALE, Calif. (Sept. 19, 2008) â" As software developers the world over prepare to mark the 25th anniversary of the GNU System, Silicon Graphics, Inc. (NASDAQ: SGIC) today announced it is releasing a new version of the SGI Free Software License B. The license, which now mirrors the free X11 license used by X.Org, further opens previously released SGI® graphics software that has set the industry standard for visualization software and has proven essential to GNU/Linux® and a host of applications.
Today's announcement affects software created by SGI that forms the building blocks of many elements of today's gaming, visual computing, and immersive experiential technologies, including a wide range of proven visualization solutions provided by SGI.
Previous SGI contributions to the free and open source community are now available under the new license. These contributions include the SGI® OpenGL® Sample Implementation, the GLXâ API and other GLX extensions. GLX provides the glue connecting OpenGL and the X Window Systemâ and is required by any OpenGL implementation using X. GLX is vital to a range of free and commercial software, including all major Linux distributions.
SGI first released the software under a licensing model in 1999. But now SGI is pleased to release an updated version of the license that meets the free and open source software community's widely accepted definition of "free."
"SGI has been one of the most ardent commercial supporters of free and open source software, so it was important to us that we continue to support the free software development community by releasing our earlier OpenGL-related contributions under this new license," said Steve Neuner, director of Linux, SGI. "This license ensures that all existing user communities will benefit, and their work can proceed unimpeded. Both Mesa and the X.org Project can continue to utilize this code in free software distributions of GNU/Linux. Now more than ever, software previously released by SGI under earlier GLX and SGI Free Software License B is free."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I love me some SGI gear, but 'NEVER crash' wasn't their strong suit - at least not compared to any other proprietary UNIX system vendor of the era.
They built racehorses - fancy, complex, high-bandwidth, expensive. They didn't skip a beat when blasting data around, though, at least until you got to the network.
-Isaac
Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Interfaces are one of the most important things in modern software creation. Interfaces are often established by implementations. This change by SGI makes sure OpenGL will stay used and even wider adopted. As far as I can see, it is the only graphics library standard that has the potential for long-term usage.
The important lesson here is. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be a jerk about it. From the article.
"Someone came to me on IRC and asked if people should start sending angry faxes to SGI, telling them to please clean up their licenses. And I was like, 'No, that's not the right message right now.' We were trying to avoid that kind of reaction, because among the people in the GNewSense community, there was a visceral reaction initially, and it took some time for people to realize that we needed to give them a chance. And it really paid off. SGI was very willing to work with us throughout the entire process.""
Re:The important lesson here is. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it depends really.
In the recent Ubuntu/Mozilla case, both Ubuntu and Fedora had behind-the-scenes quiet negotiations with Mozilla over the EULAs. However Mozilla insisted that it wanted and needed the EULA.
It wasn't until there was a fairly big uproar about it did Mozilla come back to the table to renegotiate.
So sometimes the squeaky wheel does get the grease :)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yea but only until that wheel can be replaced. Honestly I really doubt that any of the venom from the masses had anything to do with Mozilla renegotiating. The suggestion that Ubuntu would create or use an unlabeled "fork" of FireFox probably did a lot more than any of the screaming.
I don't have any problem with a click through EULA. If nothing else in the case of free software it tells people that they do have the right to use and even give it to other people.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, with the recent Firefox issue the FLOSS community was on both sides of the table and they're both fairly dependent on each other, it's a bit different than when you're trying to ask for a unilateral favor since I don't see SGI getting much in return, nor the FSF/OSI having much power if they refused. At least the distros could have banded together, told Mozilla that from now on Firefox on Linux == Iceweasel and built their own trademark. Debian doing it is just a freak thing, every distro doing it mea
Where is the updated GLX public license? (Score:3, Interesting)
The link to the GLX public license lists version 1.0 which seems to still have the problematic clauses.
No, the OTHER license. (Score:3, Interesting)
There were two licenses listed as having problems, that's only one of them.
Big news (Score:5, Interesting)
The opening of video card drivers and now opengl are major steps in the success of linux on the desktop (and for gamers).
Just imagine, we can now add opengl to Heretic and Command and Conquer, and it can all still be very much free. I can't wait for when I can port Halflife2 to Linux.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Strictly speaking, the games themselves would still be proprietary. But I've never met a free software advocate who had very strong principles against closed source games.
But this is very good news for free games and compositing managers. Hopefully it will also encourage more development and patches on OpenGL, as well; which helps everyone and not just the people building a free system.
Re:Big news (Score:5, Funny)
Will this new benefit or hurt Duke Nukem Forever? This is the question we should all be pondering.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sadly, OGL was never the standard in the gaming world. Games went from mode13 to directx to direct3d pretty much universally. OGL was only used by a small number of players (though ID, obviously was a significant one).
Re:Big news (Score:4, Informative)
Usually direct hardware access. The metal is standard, so bare metal writes are fine.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Open" in business denotes that other businesses are also allowed participate. And OpenGL was in that sense "open": many used the library, many contributed extensions and features.
As library - it is (was?) proprietary closed source. As standard - it is open.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't really understand this situation. I thought OpenGL was an api, not a program. Mesa is a free software implementation of that API.
I guess I was mistaken. Specifically what code was problematic before, and why wasn't it rewritten?
Re:Big news (Score:5, Informative)
SGI offered a sample software implementation of an OpenGL device driver to hardware vendors. This source code would provide a software specification of the way that any hardware should behave. It could be used as a fallback if a hardware vendor didn't choose to implement a particular feature of OpenGL functionality directly in hardware. It would be the responsibility of the hardware vendor to choose what to implement in hardware and software. Early consumer boards just did the rasterization, and used the Intel MMX2/AMD 3DNow! instructions to do the TLC (transformation/lighting/clipping).
A professional board or gaming card would do everything in hardware. Because of the way OpenGL is implemented, there are a multitude of ways of sending down geometry - any combination of vertices plus optional outward normals/texture coordinates/colors for triangles, quads, triangle strips, triangle fans, line or points. And these might be integers, 16-bit/32-bit/64-bit floating point. Each particular combination might or might not be optimized for the hardware. There was a big fuss in the past, because vendors chose only to optimize the particular combinations for the Quake game. Home developers were confused why their implementations would run slower than the real Quake.
For every possible option at a particular layer (vertex transformation, vertex lighting, vertex clipping, triangle rasterization), there would be a function pointer choosing which function call to make - either to the software implementation or writing to hardware registers.
Mesa-GL is a open-source implementation of the OpenGL specification, written by the open-source community and not SGI. OpenGL was originally a rewrite of SGI proprietary SGI-GL API which worked on all workstations from Indigo's to Extreme's. SGI was charging vendors a license fee for access to their software implementation, which included a verification test suite for hardware. Because of this, they were reluctant to make the software open source.
But with the evolution of 3D hardware, the free availability of an open-source version of OpenGL and the possibility that programmers might even get to be able to use the GPU to write directly to the framebuffer once again, it is strategic for SGI to make this software open source.
Before DirectX and OpenGL, game programmers only used either Mode 13 with 320x200x256 color palette (or other VESA 256 color modes) to write directly to the hardware. Programmers could just use whatever algorithm they could think of - use the 256 color-palette as a Z-buffer for rendering spheres, depth-shading effects, color cycling, sprite animation. Have 16 sub-palettes each a shade darker than the others and you could do shadow effects. Create a pixelmap C++ class that could be memory-mapped to the framebuffer, add some block copy, point drawing line drawing, textured triangle/quad filling routines and you have your own mini 3D API. Since the framebuffer itself was a pixelmap, you could use the framebuffer itself as a texture map (this technique was actually patented in hardware).
Parent
Re:Big news (Score:5, Informative)
Mesa3D was open because it is not OpenGL - it is an OpenGL API compatible library, and therefore not subject to any licensing fees charged by SGI (OpenGL brand usage and licensing is usually paid for by hardware vendors). WINE is similar - it's a Windows and DirectX compatible library for Linux (i.e. it is not Windows or a Windows emulator).
It looks like SGI is OK with releasing the API and associated royalties, but in a way that makes sense because they are really no longer involved with it (and I'm not even sure if they've collected royalties lately - in the 1990s I recall it was around $20000/vendor).
Parent
Pretty obvious why ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The response to the latest opengl release has been, to put it mildly, underwhelming. A number of opengl developers in the blogs I have read have declared intentions of moving over to directx. This is the way for opengl developers to get a bigger share of the open source developer mindshare and development effort to make up for the egg they laid earlier this year.
Would that be mindshare among the people developing open source 3D games? (Both of them)?
Or the people developing open source desktop apps that depend on 3D? (who are either already fairly committed to OpenGL anyway or weren't even remotely interested in open source, regardless of 3D API)
Just to set the record straight. (Score:5, Informative)
This wont magically solve your driver issues.
This wont magically port your game to opengl.
The openGL headers have always been available to compile against.
This is the source for the reference implementation of openGL. It would be of interest if your planning on writing a 3D 'rendering' engine (not 3d game engine) from scratch, or are interested in how the opengl stack works.
FYI, mesaGL's source has always been readily available and is based off SGI's implementation.
Is OpenGL a player anymore? (Score:4, Insightful)
I am sorry, but someone has to ask. If you had told me that this happened five six years ago, I would be ecstatic, as this would have proven to be a worthy deterrent to Microsoft's DirectX, which was lagging behind OpenGL adoption.
But with DirectX with what 90% of the market(?), I fear its too little, too late. SGI, though one of the icons of the past, has had to suffer from people at the top in late 90s who had really not much vision as to how the PC world was going to pan out over the next few years and was really caught unaware when OpenGL went the way of the doodoo.
But hey, SGI was still the only place then who had Aeron chairs (this from a friend of mine who was gracious enough to invite me to their awesome lunch cafe).
Re:Is OpenGL a player anymore? (Score:5, Interesting)
OpenGL was never very big in the gaming world either. Quake/HL was a standout in this regard, but most 3D game engines have been very custom, or based on DirectX - DirectX was sort of mandatory once game authors lost direct access to hardware.
Parent
Re:Is OpenGL a player anymore? (Score:4, Funny)
SGI, though one of the icons of the past, has had to suffer from people at the top in late 90s who had really not much vision as to how the PC world was going to pan out over the next few years and was really caught unaware when OpenGL went the way of the doodoo.
I can assure you that the doodoo is very much stil around, and in fact fills the pants of every non-toilet trained infant and toddler around the world.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But with DirectX with what 90% of the market(?), ..."when OpenGL went the way of the doodoo."
90% of what market? DirectX is 100% of Microsofts private Windows/XBox market.
OpenGL is used on PC/Linux, MacOS X, Unixes, Playstation2, Playstation3, GameCube, Wii. Far from extinction I would say.
Enjoy,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Darn, because we really want more gamers in our community.
I know I stay up nights depressed that more 13 - 16 year olds aren't spamming our forums with even stupider questions that the window drones.
I wait for the day were the posts change from "Why don't my drivers work" to "Dude, wtf is the problem with this linux pos. This sux!!!'
Re:Too little, too late (Score:5, Insightful)
I wait for the day were the posts change from "Why don't my drivers work" to "Dude, wtf is the problem with this linux pos. This sux!!!'
The funny thing is I always had more success being a bit insulting when I needed Linux help on a forum. If I asked "I can't get foo to work. I've read the docs and tried bar and baz, but it didn't help." I'd get crickets. If I said "Linux sucks because it can't do foo." Then a ton of fanboys would pile on, call me every name in the book, and then explain in exacting detail how foo can be done. They might've thought I'm a retard, but at least my question got answered. :-)
Parent
Re:Too little, too late (Score:4, Informative)
I think this has the largest number of comments from people who have absolutely no clue what the story is about than any other Slashdot story.
The relevant code was already released to the X Consortium and has been distributed with XFree86 and X.org for well over a decade. The license was badly worded and when someone noticed that it was basically impossible to comply with (and therefore not Free Software) and so SGI fixed this to clarify the original intent of the license.
Parent
And for their next trick (Score:4, Informative)
they should fix the GLUT license.
Re:And for their next trick (Score:4, Informative)
GLUT is just a bunch of convenience methods, and is decade old abandonware, anyway - use freeglut [sourceforge.net] instead.
Parent
Unusual slashdot article (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was tempted to post: "Holy crap, this is big news!! SGI is still in business!!!"
Surprisingly enough, not only is SGI still in business, but they'll even sell you a workstation with a MIPS processor [sgi.com] (if you really want one).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Quick question... (Score:4, Informative)
Nvidia does not support PureVideo HD in linux.
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=106584 [nvnews.net]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've gotten results with a Radeon HD3450 running an HDMI to a 1080p TV. It took a little tweaking, especially of accursed X configuration files, but the standard ATI driver works.
Re:Good news? (Score:5, Insightful)
The code was already "free" for a given definition of "free", however, three problems were identified.
The old licences:
As such, it was easy to modify the code, but it wasn't free or open enough by the standards of either the Free Software Foundation or the Open Source Initiative.
OpenGL is a standard, just like Java is. The fact that there are many implementations of those standards doesn't mean that there is a problem. Besides which, it doesn't really matter, most people will code for the reference implementation (Sun Java and SGI OpenGL).
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Let a hundred extensions bloom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, OpenGL already has a documented extension mechanism that is widely used, by virtually every vendor, to provide documented and open access to their extensions. Changing the licensing on one implementation of the standard will not increase the fragmentation of OpenGL, and fragmentation of OpenGL has not led nVidia and ATI to drop it.
In fact... looking at the listed extensions [opengl.org] I see 15 _ATI_ extensions and 54 _NV_ extensions. :)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Firefox is open-source, but manages to adhere (pretty well) to the standards set for HTML, Javascript, etc.
OpenOffice is open-source, but manages to adhere to a farily well-defined guideline for file formats (ODF).
There are plenty of other examples of open-source projects sticking to well-defined standards and guidelines. I understand your concern; there is no guarantee that incompatible forking won't happen. But, there is at least precedent for open-source communities working together to maintain coh
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a matter of interface vs code. Even though the code is free there's still an OpenGL organization that puts the official stamp on what the OpenGL specification is. Sure you can deviate from that but if noone else cares the it won't be useful. And if you read the actual license issues (you did RTFA right?) none of those would have prevented you from doing the same under the old license.