openSUSE Hobbled By Microsoft Patents 266
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Novell is the Judas Goat. (Score:5, Informative)
Prior art? (Score:4, Informative)
anti-aliasing makes me need glasses (Score:4, Informative)
Sheldon
Exactly (Score:5, Informative)
Apples and oranges, the bug reporter is confused or trolling.
It's only the filtering (Score:5, Informative)
Freetype library is GPL (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:It's FreeType for a start! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Novell is the Judas Goat. (Score:5, Informative)
Clear-Type replacement (Score:4, Informative)
http://oyhus.no/SubLCD.html [oyhus.no]
Re:anti-aliasing makes me need glasses (Score:3, Informative)
On a 72dpi LCD attached to a PC running Windows the effect is obvious (and hideous) all the glyphs have red and blue fringes. Turning ClearType off is the first thing I do on a Windows box after disabling the Windows XP theme.
On my 100dpi+ MacBook Pro I had to use the zoom function to confirm that it was using sub-pixel anti-aliasing. Even on my second monitor it's acceptable, and that's a cheap low density screen.
Apple have spent some time getting font anti-aliasing right: the initial AA in OS X looked like someone had just applied gaussian blur to the whole screen. Now it actually does what it's supposed to do, which is reduce eye fatigue.
On the other hand, once we get our long promised 300dpi screens monitor resolution will be the same as paper and we can dump kludgy hacks like ClearType.
Correction. AA support in Windows. (Score:3, Informative)
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:never so (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Prior art (Score:5, Informative)
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:It's FreeType for a start! (Score:2, Informative)
The standalone patches are here http://david.freetype.org/lcd/ [freetype.org]
Re:Suse vs Open Suse (Score:2, Informative)
BTW, if you are a Windows person who is looking for a friendly Linux distro, this is for you. You can run Ubuntu from the CD to try it out before installing, and it is the very epitome of "user-friendly." You don't even have to edit config files, if that seems daunting. Take the plunge--you won't regret it.
Re:Prior art (Score:2, Informative)
* Yes, in practice the USA grants patents for basically anything regardless of merit, but the USA sucks.
Re:Prior art (Score:3, Informative)
That was completely misleading. The use of 256 levels for making antialiased fonts is really old and has nothing to do with this.
What sub pixel rendering does is make the pixel represent *more* than 256 different possible combinations of the fg and bg colors, where combinations are how an fully opaque edge falls into the square the pixel represents. Exactly how many is unclear, it is not 256^3, but I think it is 3*256 for the case of an antialiased vertical straight edge of an object significantly larger than a pixel (it goes down as the edge gets less vertical or if another edge gets within a few pixels of it). This is done by using hardware quirks so that various of the 256^3 possible colors are interpreted by the viewer as different coverages.
The Apple technique made a pixel represent more than the 2 possible coverages you mentioned. This is done by using hardware quirks so that the some of the 4 (16? i dunno) possible colors are interpreted by the viewer as different coverages.
They certainly are related, but I don't believe enough to invalidate Microsoft's patent. The difference is that the "hardware quirks" are vastly different.
Re:Prior art (Score:3, Informative)
I remember the same technique used on the Atari 8-bit computers, in the monochrome "Graphics Mode 8" level. By offsetting the *placement* of pixels, you could accomplish new colors. The effect was used (but less noticable) in lower-res modes, which also had more color, but you could choose between "smoothing" OR "more colors".
Note that these were COMMON techniques on computers that hooked to TVs, and also to CGI monitors. It was especially useful on the Apple 2c computer which had a monochrome high res mode like the Atari 8-bit.
I see a lot of posts here confusing these old techniques with "anti-aliasing". This is NOT the technique used -- anti-aliasing simply blends the difference between 2+ contrasting pixels. These old techniques did not do that - they CALCULATED the placement of pixels to take advantage of "display artifacts" - and generate perceived resolutuins (or color range) higher than the hardware was intended to deliver.
It would be difficult for someone else to argue Apple's prior art if Apple is un-interested in the battle, so this patent is not going anywhere.
Re:Prior art (Score:3, Informative)
Screenshot of my OS X system: http://img248.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture3
If you zoom in, you can see I'm definitely using subpixel rendering. I get the odd blurry looking font on my OS X system, but nowhere near the sort of stuff I see on other people's Windows laptops.
Re:Prior art (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Licenses. (Score:4, Informative)
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).
Re:It is about precedents (Score:3, Informative)
This realization is precisely what the patentmongers fear. Because if this realization gets out in the world it will do them irreparable damage - the argument [in court] will be that it is utterly impossible to develop software because of the patent system. Admitting that you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery...
Your opinion isn't worth much. There is one place, and one place only, where Linux is behind. That area is in drivers. Oh sure, Linux might support more hardware than any version of Windows - I wouldn't have any trouble believing that. But the problem with Linux is that the support for some hardware raises numerous problems which you simply don't have to deal with on Windows.
Aside from that, can you name one kind of task that's easier on Windows than, say, on Ubuntu Feisty? I really will settle for just one clear example.
Very Similar != Same in court eyes (Score:2, Informative)