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."
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: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: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: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: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:Over my dead body (Score:2, Informative)
Of course, it's best not to let facts [apple.com] influence your opinion.
Re:Opensource and MPL? (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:Opensource and MPL? (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: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: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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)