Pixar Demos Newly Open-Sourced OpenSubdiv Graphics Tech 140
An anonymous reader writes "Last week at SIGGRAPH, Pixar Animation Studios announced OpenSubdiv, an open source implementation of the Renderman subdivision surface technology, thus releasing the patents to the long standing Pixar 'secret sauce.' In addition to the offline subdivision scheme, it also includes a GPU implementation. This video demonstrates a realtime deforming subdivision surface running at 50 FPS in Maya (though it is freely available to use anywhere). The source code is available on Pixar's GitHub account."
Says the project's site: "OpenSubdiv is covered by the Microsoft Public License, and is free to use for commercial or non-commercial use. This is the same code that Pixar uses internally for animated film production."
Over my dead body (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently they open sourced it over Steve Job's dead body.
Re:Over my dead body (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Of course, it's best not to let facts [apple.com] influence your opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Man, you must be a hoot at parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Webkit [webkit.org]
Bonjour [apple.com]
Clang [llvm.org]
libdispatch [macosforge.org]
So wat is the point you are trying to prove ?
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
CUPS is not Apple-originated, but Apple did buy the company that created it. Libdispatch is entirely Apple-original. LLVM is not, but Apple-paid developers wrote a significant amount of the code (I think they're now down to less than half, but that's because of others - including Google - contributing more, not Apple contributing less). Clang was originally created by Apple, open sourced, and a lot of code contributions still come from Apple. Launchd was created by Apple, released under the APSL, and th
Re: (Score:1)
Will they give back BMRT now?
Does not make sense to me (Score:3)
"an open source implementation of the Renderman subdivision surface technology, thus releasing the patents to the long standing Pixar 'secret sauce."
The Renderman Interface spec already contains how the subdivision surfaces are supposed to be described and computed, so we know how to do that. There are already other implementations. Moreover, publishing the source code does not "release patents" in any meaningful sense, not to mention the fact that patents are, by definition, public.
Re:Does not make sense to me (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, in this case, it does. The Microsoft Public License has an explicit patent grant for all included technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but since it specifies "derivative works" as being covered, I think you could write your own implementations, especially if you included even a tiny snippet of the original code. Might have to license it under the same license, though (again, not a lawyer so I'm not sure)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Does not make sense to me (Score:5, Informative)
You should read the license. It includes a worldwide, royalty free license grant. It does indeed "release patents" with the small qualification that if you sue Pixar for patent infringement your royalty free license is automatically yanked.
Re: (Score:2)
You should read the license. It includes a worldwide, royalty free license grant. It does indeed "release patents" with the small qualification that if you sue Pixar for patent infringement your royalty free license is automatically yanked.
Thanks to Patent Trolls (non practising entities) this retaliation clause means absolutely nothing, it's the prime function of Shell Corps. You want to sue Pixar? Just spin up a new Paper Person, toss some patent and moolah grants their way and sick 'em. What is Pixar going to do against such a non practising entity? They don't make anything, so they can't counter sue for infringement.
Can't wait to see what comes... (Score:2)
As good a time as any (Score:5, Interesting)
Our intent is to encourage high performance accurate subdiv drawing by giving away the "good stuff".
I want to be wrong about this. I really do. But I read this as "our intent is to establish a tie to our proprietary products Renderman and Maya via a license carefully designed by Microsoft to be incompatible with GPL, and thus Blender."
Well, this would be as good a time as any to point out that Maya is not the only game in town. There is Blender of course. And there is my as-yet-unannounced project based on a half edge meshing technology that is way superior to the creaky old infrastructure Maya relies on. There are already some great results in terms of high complexity meshes and excellent real time performance. So far it has been just me pushing on the code, but that should change pretty soon. Go here [phunq.net] to find out about World Welder. Check out some demo images here [phunq.net], here [phunq.net] and here [phunq.net]. Those are all high triangle count, high complexity meshes rendering at smooth interactive frame rates on low end hardware. There are various algorithms in use. The 3D Freetype Unicode fonts are done with Root3 subdivision, arguably superior to Catmull Clark favored by the Maya crowd. Still lots of work to do to implement boundaries, creases, deformable heirarchy and the like, but the base it's built on is solid as a rock. And really compact as well, yes sometimes you can have it all. Anyway, I will be making a more official project announcement in due course but for now, a tarball is online here [phunq.net]. I apologize in advance for the documentation quality, but not for the code quality. Please be kind to my server and don't browse all the images, it's just a cable modem with pathetic upload bandwidth. (By the way, sponsorship in the form of web hosting would be much appreciated.)
There remains much work to do, sigh, there always is. But this is already the skeleton of a nice 3D meshing workbench, and it is time to put some meat on the bones. Language is C++11, scripting is Lua, GUIs are GLX and QT, revision control is Mercurial, license is GPLv3. Anybody who wants to join the mailing list is more than welcome, developers and future users alike.
Re:As good a time as any (Score:5, Informative)
Our intent is to encourage high performance accurate subdiv drawing by giving away the "good stuff".
I want to be wrong about this. I really do. But I read this as "our intent is to establish a tie to our proprietary products Renderman and Maya via a license carefully designed by Microsoft to be incompatible with GPL, and thus Blender."
You'll be happy to know then that you're likely at least partially wrong.
First: http://www.blender.org/BL/ [blender.org] -- from this, you may conclude that their intent is to force Blender to activate the Blender License.
Second: Blender is licensed under "GNU General Public License v2 or later" -- and that "or later" bit is key here, as the MS-PL is compatible with GPLv3, just not with GPLv2. The end result of this is that the code is compatible with any GPLv3 code *and* any GPLv2 code with the "or later" clause that is used with Blender libraries and derivatives. It should also be compatible with the LGPL.
Re: (Score:2)
the MS-PL is compatible with GPLv3, just not with GPLv2
It depends who you ask. The FSF states clearly that Ms-PL is incompatible with GPL, period, no version specified.
MS-PL.. a free software license; it has a copyleft that is not strong, but incompatible with the GNU GPL. We urge you not to use the Ms-PL for this reason. [gnu.org]
Re: (Score:2)
the MS-PL is compatible with GPLv3, just not with GPLv2
It depends who you ask. The FSF states clearly that Ms-PL is incompatible with GPL, period, no version specified.
MS-PL.. a free software license; it has a copyleft that is not strong, but incompatible with the GNU GPL. We urge you not to use the Ms-PL for this reason. [gnu.org]
Yes... and that description hasn't changed since MS-PL first made headlines on Slashdot... which was before GPLv3 first made headliens on Slashdot. My guess is that nobody at FSF has bothered to update the MS-PL description since GPLv3 was created.
Re: (Score:2)
the MS-PL is compatible with GPLv3, just not with GPLv2
It depends who you ask. The FSF states clearly that Ms-PL is incompatible with GPL, period, no version specified.
MS-PL.. a free software license; it has a copyleft that is not strong, but incompatible with the GNU GPL. We urge you not to use the Ms-PL for this reason. [gnu.org]
Yes... and that description hasn't changed since MS-PL first made headlines on Slashdot... which was before GPLv3 first made headliens on Slashdot. My guess is that nobody at FSF has bothered to update the MS-PL description since GPLv3 was created.
That's your opinion, or is it legal advice? And are you seriously suggesting that the FSF does not pay careful attention to the accuracy of information it posts on its license information page? Why don't you email Eben Moglen and ask?
Re: (Score:2)
It's my opinion, and not legal advice. If it WAS legal advice, it wouldn't be legal legal advice. I am seriously suggesting that the FSF posted a suggestion and recommendation that still remains correct -- they have not further analysed all the ramifications and there has been no legal precedent, so the best recommendation they can make is the one they've already made (which is still accurate, as it's a recommendation). While it's possible Eben and the FSF have revisited their original study of the inter
Re: (Score:2)
I won't email Eben about this, because I'm not about to use either license in any code...
I will email Eben with a request to update the commentary with respect to GPL v3. I'm not sure why you won't, even though you are willing to comment publicly on the question.
Re: (Score:2)
Real answer? I'm lazy. Thanks for taking the extra step :)
Re:As good a time as any (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Being a 3D artist this does interest me. I use Modo, Maya, Zbrush, and Mudbox frequently and subd standard is very useful. Does your intended implementation share subdivision order Pixar's spec? Does UV smoothing result in identical UV borders?
Pixar compatibility is not a feature I intend to code myself, however anybody who wants to take it on is welcome. The World Welder meshing API is clean, powerful, efficient and nice to work with. Currently, there is no UV interpolation in the subdivision algorithms at all, that work is upcoming. Any acceptable interpolation must produce identical UV at matching borders, anything else is a bug.
Open-source subdivision technology originating from Pixar sounds like a wonderful thing that could alleviate some of the problems I mentioned. After all it's coming from the source of subdivision technology. Catmull Clark subdivision was created by Ed Catmull of Pixar and Jim Clark, co-founder of Silicon Graphics.
To tell the truth, Catmull-Clark was the first and worst of the crop of modern subdivision algorithms. It has terrib
Re: (Score:3)
Of course the comment holds no legal weight whatsoever, but its an encouraging sign.
A snip from that comment (emphasis mine):
Re: (Score:2)
As you say, a Youtube comment means nothing. Let's see what the resolution with Blender is, and let's see just what the patent grant is. The truth could range anywhere from cynical manipulation to awesome gift to humanity. Frankly I've seen too much cynical manipulation to be awfully hopeful about the latter though.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You've got things backwards. It's the MSPL is engineered to be a poison pill. The GPL is much older and much more well established.
It's anything newer that's going out of it's way to be hostile to the GPL or copyleft generally.
Re: (Score:1)
Like the GPL v3?
Re: (Score:3)
The GPL v3 accomplished the important goal of extending GPL compatibility to the Apache license among others. Losing compatibility with GPL v2 has been at most a minor annoyance while bringing Apache into the fold has proved to be of major importance.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you just say the ends justify the means?
By the way, in case you didn't catch the sarcasm in my post, I disagree with the OP. If you want to release your code under whatever license you want, go for it. If some zealot comes along and claims you're being hostile to his ideology, give yourself a pat on the back. It's particularly ironic because the MSPL doesn't have a problem with GPL code, it's the GPL that has a problem with MSPL code (or almost any non GPL license... except GPL licenses are incompati
Re: (Score:2)
Did you just say the ends justify the means?
I didn't, and I will thank you not to put words in my mouth, troll. Microsoft's reasons for design the MS-PL as it did are transparently obvious, apparently to all but you. Unlike MS-PL, the GPL v3 is a major success, clearly an improvement on v2.
Re: (Score:2)
I asked a question. That's not putting words in your mouth. I'll thank you to try to be civil, regardless of how defensive you feel.
So your argument boils down to: I like the GPL and I don't like Microsoft, therefore the GPL is good and anything from Microsoft is bad?
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft was earned a complete lack of trust and respect from the general community and your simpering will not change that. There is no reason whatsoever to suspect Microsoft of honorable intentions in designing its embrace/extent/extinguish series of faux-open licenses. Fortunately for the rest of us, the world in general has little interest in them. The fact that Pixar does only reflects badly on what could otherwise be a worthwhile project. Don't take my word for it, follow the project and see what hap
Re: (Score:2)
The license is all of a quarter page long. There's no nefariousness hidden there, despite what you'd like to imagine. Notably, the incompatibility between the GPL and the MSPL does not come from the MSPL.
Microsoft has done some nasty things but we're talking about an open source license, not a multinational corporation.
Re:As good a time as any (Score:5, Insightful)
In one corner, there's a short license that permits distribution in any form, includes a patent grant, and places no restrictions on people downstream other than revoking their patent license if they sue others and does not place any restrictions on what code can be linked to it.
In the other corner, we have a multi-page monstrosity that places strict restrictions on exactly what can be linked with it to such a degree that different versions of the same license are mutually incompatible.
Now, personally, I'd blame the second one.
Jesus Christ! (Score:4)
Can you people stop pissing and moaning and hairsplitting about license terms and allow some discussion of what this tech means for the medium-term future?
A few questions I'd certainly love to get answered from someone who's knowledgeable:
-Is this the REYES algorythm?
-Does it differ in important ways from the Catmull-Clark subdivision that's pretty much standard in off-the-shelf 3D software?
-With the increasing prevalence of raytraced GPU/coprocessor rendering replacing rasterisation in near-realtime applications, is this tech now mostly irrelevant?
-What are some things the release of this technology might make possible?
-Does this have any impact on the patent encumbrance surrounding Renderman's nearly-free motion blur?
-How much longer were those REYES patents going to last anyway?
Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:5, Informative)
"-Is this the REYES algorithm?"
No
"-Does it differ in important ways from the Catmull-Clark subdivision that's pretty much standard in off-the-shelf 3D software?"
No. It is that exactly. But GPU accelerated so it runs in realtime.
"-With the increasing prevalence of raytraced GPU/coprocessor rendering replacing rasterisation in near-realtime applications, is this tech now mostly irrelevant?"
No. You still need geometry to render, whether you use ray tracing or not.
"-What are some things the release of this technology might make possible?"
Prettiness. In realtime.
"-Does this have any impact on the patent encumbrance surrounding Renderman's nearly-free motion blur?"
No.
"-How much longer were those REYES patents going to last anyway?"
Don't know. Off topic.
Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are currently 12 comments at +5 and only one talks about the software--the other 11 are about the license. Dropping down to +3 doesn't help any.
Can anyone else here weigh in on the technology itself?
Re: (Score:2)
There are currently 12 comments at +5 and only one talks about the software--the other 11 are about the license. Dropping down to +3 doesn't help any
You just noticed the first obvious bad result of using the MsPL. I suspect we're in for more of this. I'd love to be wrong about that but I'm not holding my breath.
Re: (Score:2)
>Can anyone else here weigh in on the technology itself?
Pixar's subidivision surfaces are very efficient in terms of graphic visualization, parametrization, deformation and texturing. Other implementations are significant slower. The Pixar video presentation at SIGGRAPH shows they work great in realtime, something important when you're doing animation. As an example, NewTek Lightwave Catmull-Clarck subdivs have serious implementation problems, something that can be solved with opensubdivs. Luxology Modo
priorities...what's it do for games? (Score:2)
(Hey, it's been a while since anyone mentioned that, thought I'd bring it back just for old time's sake....although the demo video kinda looks like the jokes not funny anymore...)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Can anyone explain what the consequences of it being released under Microsoft Public License are? Is it toxic to OSS ecosystem, or is it just GPL incompatible (and presumably part of the "extend" part of MS's attack on FOSS)?
Re:Opensource and MPL? (Score:5, Informative)
According to wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
This is the least restrictive of the Microsoft licenses and allows for distribution of compiled code for either commercial or non-commercial purposes under any license that complies with the Ms-PL. Redistribution of the source code itself is permitted only under the Ms-PL.[12] Initially titled Microsoft Permissive License, it was renamed to Microsoft Public License while being reviewed for approval by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). The license was approved on October 12, 2007 along with the Ms-RL.[11] According to the Free Software Foundation, it is a free software license but not compatible with the GNU GPL.[6]
Re:Opensource and MPL? (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia is wrong. From opensourcelegal.org [opensourcelegal.org], it is compatible with the GPL, but only with GPLv3. GPLv2 is incompatible with patent retaliation clauses. GPLv3 is not.
Incidentally, GPLv2 without an "and later" clause is also incompatible with GPLv3 for the same reason.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Open Source Legal is wrong, at least according to FSF [gnu.org] and the Ms-PL license text,
"If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution."
I.E. Anyone outside of the MS ecosystem shall not directly use our code. Granted, piping is always an option, even with GPLv3, but this is an anti Free software clause aimed directly keeping "shared source" away from actual open source implementation.
Re:Opensource and MPL? (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh... there's no such thing as a license that doesn't require you to distribute the code under that license, and requiring someone to include a complete copy of the license is also pretty much the norm. By your definition, all non-GPL licenses are incompatible with the GPL. Sorry, but licenses don't work that way. GPL-compatible does not mean that you can simply copy and paste code willy-nilly into a GPL project.
Re:Opensource and [MS-PL]? (Score:4, Insightful)
GPL-compatible does not mean that you can simply copy and paste code willy-nilly into a GPL project.
Most BSD style licenses are unencumbered enough that you can relicense direct derivatives (not just composite works) under practically any terms you want. Commercial companies do this all the time, and it is in fact what makes BSD style licensing for open source software projects so controversial - anyone can create a proprietary fork at will, with components that quickly lose their BSD character as modifications are added.
GPL licensed derivatives of BSD licensed components can be created in the same manner. It is the copyright of the authors of the modifications that makes the relicensing have teeth, it is the lack of a prohibition on additional license terms in BSD style licenses that makes it possible.
The MS-PL, on the other hand, specifically prohibits this practice, much like the Mozilla Public License (MPL). Both are moderate copyleft licenses, designed to make sure that derivatives of covered source files are always available under the terms of the original license.
Re: (Score:2)
But you cannot remove the copyright notice, as a rule, if you are distributing it in source code form, nor can you remove the license terms. All BSD licenses contain this clause:
I'm not aware of any software licenses that do not con
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, you certainly cannot remove the copyright notice, nor can you remove the license. However, you can indicate that a given file contains "portions" copyright so and so that are subject to a BSD license, and portions copyright someone else that are subject to a more restrictive license.
That has the effect of subjecting the whole file (assuming substantial modifications have been made) to the restrictions contained in both licenses, because the copyrights of both the original copyright holder and late
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't effectively change the license on the existing code. The portions that were under a BSD license remain so licensed, at least to the extent that the person who receives it can still figure out what parts were originally covered by the BSD license. The clause in the MS-PL requiring that distribution of that code in source code form must be under
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't effectively change the license on the existing code
I didn't say it changed the license on anything. I said it has the effect (the practical effect) of subjecting the whole file to the more restrictive license. The reason why this is the case is (as you note) it can quickly become impossible to determine which lines are subject to which license.
Of course it doesn't subject the original code to the more restrictive license, you just don't know what is the original code. If you want to create
Re: (Score:1)
Why wouldn't it be usable as-is? The license is GPL v3-compatible
Re: (Score:1)
It looks toxic. An intentionally toxic license by Microsoft with patent ties, or in other words, a patent grant that ties it to the Microsoft license thus being incompatible with all the open source licenses people actually want to use. [gnu.org] And the patents are all bogus no doubt, they are the "my lawyer budget is bigger than yours" kind of intellectual property. Prove me wrong please, I would love that, but I am not optimistic.
Re: (Score:2)
Care to explain why? Other than the one liner on the GNU page saying that it's incompatible with the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems an odd choice of "open source" license-- promotes freedom of binary distribution, and restricts freedom of source distribution.
Why? They also sell a commercial package with these libraries. They kinda need to distribute binaries...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Opensource and MPL? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not? To my reading the MSPL is considerably freer than the GPL. It's also a quarter of a page long and written in plain language. It also doesn't seem to conflict with the GPL 3.
Re:Opensource and MPL? (Score:5, Informative)
It's a pretty reasonable open source license, actually. It is basically a BSD license, plus a patent grant, plus a mutually assured destruction clause regarding patent suits. I'm most impressed by the fact that it is about three fewer pages than the average open source license seems to be these days. A normal person might actually be able to comprehend it. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and at a glance, I don't see anything that would be incompatible with GPL v3, which from Microsoft is pretty remarkable.... On the flip side, it is incompatible with GPL v2. This makes it absolutely bizarre and backwards as corporate open source licenses go....
Re:Opensource and MPL? (Score:5, Informative)
It may help if you know that it predates GPLv3, and so was incompatible with the GPL at the time it was created by Microsoft.
Re:Opensource and MPL? (Score:5, Funny)
My faith in humanity is restored. No, wait....
Re: (Score:1)
Of course, GPLv2 was also incompatible with the BSD license and GPLv3.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry, I'm sure there's a Service Pack on its way to deal with this legal bug ;).
Re: (Score:2)
at a glance, I don't see anything that would be incompatible with GPL v3
You didn't look closely enough.
which from Microsoft is pretty remarkable....
Smells like business as usual to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Care to elaborate on what clause invalidates compatibility with GPL v3 then? Or are you just spreading FUD?
Re: (Score:2)
From TFL, "If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution."
i.e. totally incompatible with any other major license.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be, but it can't be used by Blender [blender.org] for example because it is based on GPL v2 (like a lot of OSS software)
But the good news is that the project leader of Blender, Ton Roosendael, has met with Pixar director Bill Polson and he promised that they would work out the licensing issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool. Yeah, GPLv2 is a touchy subject. For that matter, GPL in general is a touchy subject because of all the "no additional restrictions" stuff. That said, for something like Blender, it might make more sense to define a standard plug-in interface and then dynamically load this as a plug-in. Then, the license doesn't matter at all. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, and let add this: if Pixar is actually genuine they will additionally dual license this code base under LGPL (v3), and I will be impressed. If not... well, each person can interpret that for themselves.
Re:Opensource and MPL? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but that discussion is just about as uninformed as they get. License compatibility does not mean that you can strip off one person's license and copyright and substitute your own. Compatibility means that you can combine the two in a single piece of software. The way you do this is by including one piece of code, complete with license and copyright notice, and call functions in that piece of code from another piece of software with different licensing terms. In no case is code licensed under a different set of terms, except insofar as effectively the product as a whole is governed by the union of the restrictions.
What makes a license incompatible are clauses in one license that do not allow you to impose additional restrictions, coupled with terms in the other license that impose additional restrictions above and beyond what are allowed by the first license. Such a situation does not exist here, so the licenses are compaible.
If your definition of "compatible" requires being able to substitute the GPL's terms, then there's no such thing as a GPL-compatible license other than either a dual-licensed work, a work licensed under the same version of the GPL, or a work in the public domain (and because not all countries recognize the right of an author to place a work in the public domain, there's no such thing as a GPL-compatible license at all by that definition other than a dual-licensed work). Your definition is thus completely unreasonable and nonstandard.
Re:Opensource and MPL? (Score:5, Insightful)
Boo hoo. All the criticisms apply equally or more to the GPL. The license seems to be about halfway between the BSD license and the LGPL. You COULD make a library out of the MSPL code and link to it from GPLed code. Unless something in the GPL forbids that.
It's pretty hypocritical to criticize a license for requiring that redistribution of the source of that code or derivatives must be under the same license and then turn around and recommend everyone use the GPL instead.
Re: (Score:2)
This this this! Finally - someone points out the elephant, the pot calling the kettle black. For once I'd like the GPL community to admit this. The tactics and business models supported by GPL-style licenses is why I never have, and never will, release my software with one of their lic
Re:Opensource and MPL? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's free for non-commercial AND commercial use. What the fuck else do you want? Are you really that offended that their open-source rendering library has the word "Microsoft" even tangentially related to it? Do you really think they would publish it under GPLv3, which could potentially force them to open their entire codebase?
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
It's free for non-commercial AND commercial use. What the fuck else do you want?
In a nutshell, lose the Ms-PL in order to appear genuine and gain the trust of the community. We have seen enough faux-open code bases, thankyou. Let's see proof that this is actually open and not a strategem, in which case Pixar would get the love they deserve.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL)
This license governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, you accept this license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the software.
1.Definitions
The terms "reproduce," "reproduction," "derivative works," and "distribution" have the same meaning here as under U.S. copyright law.
A "contribution" is the original software, or any additions or changes to the software.
A "contributor" is any person that distributes its contributio
Re:Opensource and MPL? (Score:5, Funny)
Let me explain the license in simple slashdot terms:
1. The license was penned by Microsoft, therefore it is evil.
2. Pixar is releasing the code. Pixar was financed by Steve Jobs into a multi-billion dollar corporation. Corporations and Steve Jobs are evil, therefore the only logical thing to conclude about Pixar's intentions is that they are evil.
3. The license is not GPL, or some similar Google license, so it is patent encumbered. Patents are evil, so the code is evil.
4. Any open source code should be GPLv3 because RMS says so, therefore the everything about this code dump is designed to embrace, extend, and extinguish s some already existing but half done FOSS alternative. That is evil.
How could this code and its license be any more evil? I've just proved to you that this whole thing is like the spawn of Satan––or Blizzard entertainment, 'cause they can't fix Diablo III.
Discuss below.
Re: (Score:2)
I've just proved to you that this whole thing is like the spawn of Satan––or Blizzard entertainment, 'cause they can't fix Diablo III.
Discuss below.
So, If OpenSubdiv isn't the spawn of Satan, then it's the spawn of Blizzard's broken Satan Simulator?
Sonny Bono (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they are opening things up. Even things like the source code for the old CDE desktop are being made available (just for an example from the last week), despite having multiple owners that all had to agree and all who were earlier suspicious of the idea of providing their source code.
Your other stuff is a bit out there since nobody is stupid enough to release a commercial product under a short
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you're going to accuse me of something, just say it. Don't be that karma-shielded AC who throws accusations around like playthings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPLv3#Libraries [wikipedia.org]
Richard Stallman and the FSF specifically encourage library-writers to license under the GPL so that proprietary programs cannot use the libraries, in an effort to protect the free-software world by giving it more tools than the proprietary world.
Following this assertion by RMS and the FSF, Pixar's release of their surface rendering library under the GPL would be an immediate violation as their own proprietary rendering systems obviously utilize this library. Therefore, if they wished to release it as GPL, they would subsequently be forced to A) Stop using it outright, or B) GPL their own in-house software that links to it to avoid being in violation of the GPL.
No sir, YOUR massive misunderstanding of licensing requirements makes your "accusations" of me suspect.
Huh? They own the copyright. A copyright holder can never impose limitations on themselves that they don't wish to adhere to. If you read the license on installation, Microsoft gives no one the right to redistribute Windows. Do you think that includes themselves as well somehow?
Either you are willfully ignorant or stupid.
Re: (Score:1)
So you're right about the copyright holder not being limited. A small victory for you on a small oversight by me. And what about the other animation studios who use proprietary products like Maya? Releasing OpenSubdiv under the GPL would fuck them over, because now they're barred from using it just because RMS can't sleep at night knowing that free software m
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sir, that is wrong. Since that would be a license they are releasing it for OTHERS. They, on the other hand, are the holders of the IP, therefore entitled to use it as they want under any conditions they wish. They also keep the right to re-release it under any other license they want, and hell, even grant others a license that allows any other set of liberties. Therefore, no, they could perfectly release it as GPL and still use it themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, he's at least partly correct.
The rights holder can release this under the GPL; they just can't use any modifications made to the GPL'd version. Just because they release some code under a license doesn't mean that they, the authors, can't ALSO release it under a more restrictive license for personal use. The GPL gives the author COMPLETE freedom, including the freedom to license their code under other licenses that conflict with it.
Therefore, if they wished to release it as GPL, they would subse
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. The GPL does not give the author COMPLETE freedom, copyright law does.
Furthermore, the GPL does not limit what USERS can do, it controls what DISTRIBUTORS must do. So even if your bizarre theory that an author must act under the same terms as he licenses it to others were true (and it most certainly isn't), the GPL wouldn't kick in until they DISTRIBUTED the code. Usage has nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you mean to respond to the GP?
I was responding to the GP's argument about distribution -- and saying that they just can't use any modifications made to distributed GPL'd code in their proprietarily distributed version, but otherwise can do whatever they want. Which appears to be exactly what you responded with, but with more CAPS and fewer examples.
Re: (Score:2)
I meant to respond to you. You made the statement "The GPL gives the author COMPLETE freedom" (caps yours). This is factually incorrect. Neither the GPL nor any other copyright license gives the author anything. They also don't take anything away from the author. Copyright law, not some license, gives all rights in a work to the author.
The rest of your post talks solely about 'use'. You never once mention the word 'distribute'. GPL does not apply to use, it applies to distribution. So, even if the d
Re: (Score:1)
I think you're missing D) use whatever changes they like but never distribute their proprietary code to anyone else.
You can use GPL code for anything you like, it's only when you distribute it to someone else that any obligations are imposed on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Following this assertion by RMS and the FSF, Pixar's release of their surface rendering library under the GPL would be an immediate violation as their own proprietary rendering systems obviously utilize this library. Therefore, if they wished to release it as GPL, they would subsequently be forced to A) Stop using it outright, or B) GPL their own in-house software that links to it to avoid being in violation of the GPL.
No.
GPL restricts only what happens to publically available software. Anybody can take and modify GPL code for in-house products as much as they like, it's only when they distribute it that they have to make sourcecode available. Ofcourse "distribute" was somewhat open to interpretation; GPLv3 attempts to fix this.
It just means they can't use any modifications made by other copyright owners, unless they get permission to do so from those other people. This permission would likely take the form of a GPL-incom
Re: (Score:3)