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, 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:Opensource and MPL? (Score:0, Insightful)
First of all, publishing anything under the GPL can never force the author to open anything. It might prevent them from using modifications of it that are not their own (but no license can guarantee that either). Honestly, your massive misunderstanding of licensing requirements makes all of your "analysis" of the situation suspect.
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:Opensource and MPL? (Score:0, Insightful)
Not surprising, since GPLv3 is the most toxic license.
Re:Opensource and MPL? (Score:0, Insightful)
It bears mentioning that the most popluar and robust OSS 3D package, Blender, uses GPLv3 and therefore this technology can't be implemented in it, as-is. That's sad because Blender really is a poster child for successful OSS. I'm a little biased because I use it constantly, but it's still unfortunate, because that would be one of the most obvious applications for this.
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: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: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.