Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software

OpenGL 1.4 Spec Finalized 80

Posted by timothy from the three-dee dept.
Sesse writes: "SGI announced yesterday that the OpenGL 1.4 specification was agreed upon by the ARB. Trying to minimize the gap between D3D8 and OpenGL, the standard adds a lot of functionality already common (being exposed as extensions in many drivers today), but more importantly brings a standard specification for vertex shaders. This should be good news for anybody doing cross-platform eyecandy :-)" This announcement is related to, but broader than, the one mentioned earlier about bringing OpenGL to mobile devices.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OpenGL 1.4 Spec Finalized More

OpenGL 1.4 Spec Finalized

Comments Filter:
  • Now I have to upgrade, already
    (throws his $500 video card in the garbage)

  • Cell Phone Luv (Score:2, Funny)

    by GweeDo ( 127172 )
    Finally, now the T&L unit in my cell phone can be fully used! I was afriad I would have to use DX on my phone for a while there ;)

  • OpenGL 2.0 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by f00Dave ( 251755 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2002 @10:57AM (#3901578) Homepage
    Fine, fine, 1.4 is good and all that, but OpenGL 2.0 is where it's REALLY at (as far as game development goes). I'm waiting for the ARB to finally admit that there's two distict uses for GL: CAD and Games. So why not split them off? Well, where would the pressure to extend GL come from if Carmack and Co. weren't shoving Quake N down the IHV's throats? ;-)

    Then again, remember MiniGL?

    Brr.....

  • "Intellectual property" issues?? (Score:3, Informative)

    by kcbrown ( 7426 ) <slashdot@sysexperts.com> on Wednesday July 17, 2002 @10:58AM (#3901589)
    I'm glad to see that they're adding more standard capabilities to OpenGL. This is necessary from time to time to keep the standard reasonably modern.

    But SGI sold some of their patents to Microsoft, and I have to wonder if any of them will cause problems for OpenGL 1.4. You know Microsoft isn't about to let OpenGL dominate as the standard for 3-D graphics...

    • Re:"Intellectual property" issues?? (Score:5, Informative)

      by mh_tang ( 307188 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2002 @11:03AM (#3901626)
      KDE Developer Hetz Ben Hamo wrote this to the Register (although not speaking for the KDE Organization as a whole):
      It's amazing how SGI was short-sighted when they sold lots of their patents regarding 3D to Microsoft.


      I have read the forums back when you posted the news about MS buying some patents from SGI and many people pointed that MS needed it for their XBox - and that made me wonder: why wouldn't NVidia bought those patents back then? They made the XBox graphics chip, so any lawsuits against MS would have simply forwarded to NVidia - the author of the NV chip.

      Few people wrote back then in the forums that MS cannot do much with their new patents - and if there will be problems with those patents, that will be the graphics manufacturers (Nvidia, Matrox, ATI, you know - the usual suspects)..

      With Apple, it's not much problematic - Apple can make some deal with MS regarding those patents and license them, so Apple case is pretty clear - so Apple can have OpenGL without any problem...

      Now - enter Linux (and *BSD - depends where/how you look). Inside XFree there's something called MESA which is an OpenGL "clone" without the OpenGL logo. MS can quickly kill Mesa with a simple cease-and-desist letter unless Mesa author will pay the license. MS can also ask money per copy of Mesa - who'll pay that?

      • Re:"Intellectual property" issues?? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Creepy ( 93888 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2002 @11:57AM (#3902123) Journal
        It is currently legal to write "OpenGL compatible" libraries by following the published specifications for OpenGL. You can't legally use the OpenGL logo or list your product as being OpenGL, even if it works better than some commercial implementations, but as long as you're not reverse engineering someone else's code, OpenGL licensing allows it. I believe a change in the license would be required for Microsoft to force a fee on Mesa.

        I also doubt if the SGI sale was the result of shortsightedness - it probably had more to do with needing a quick infusion of cash. Too bad M$ had to be the one to give it too them.
      • This should be interesting. Mesa3D [sourceforge.net] is licensed under the MIT license [sourceforge.net]; this is one of the open source licenses that Microsoft claims to love. Let's see how much they love it now, eh?
      • It's amazing how SGI was short-sighted when they sold lots of their patents regarding 3D to Microsoft.

        It's not as bad as all that. Microsoft is in a precarious position with respect to enforcement; Microsoft is, in a legal sense, a monopoly, and the patents constitute a further, legally granted monopoly, which they have purchased. Translation: Microsoft buys its way into an extended monopoly position. Imagine how well that will fly if there is any attempt to enforce.

        Microsoft management is no doubt keenly aware of this little problem, and so we'll see that the real use they will make of these patents is for FUD, and to slow down the completion/deployment of the OpenGL 2 standard. But this too is a risky strategy, and not only in a legal sense; we're already beginning to see the public backlash. If Microsoft tries to use its position on the OpenGL ARB to slow down the process of working around their newly acquired IP, the shit will really hit the fan. It was one thing when Microsoft used its power to marginalize OpenGL on the Windows platform (thanks kindly to John Carmack for preventing that strategy from succeeding completely); it's quite another if Microsoft decides to attempt this on non-Windows platforms as well. Stay tuned.
  • How does the M$ patent sabre rattling affect this?
  • Although OpenGL at times progresses slowly, it's great to see SGI and the ARB actually getting back in the loop and going after D3D. By trying to compete with D3D, it will truly help the future of OpenGL, plus help alternative OS's have 3d software (i.e. Linux, BSD's, and MacOS X).

  • SGI PR ERROR (Score:5, Informative)

    by Funk_dat69 ( 215898 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2002 @11:55AM (#3902104)
    This was a PR error by SGI.
    The vote has NOT been completed yet.

  • FUD fighting (Score:5, Informative)

    by GeLeTo ( 527660 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2002 @12:05PM (#3902194)
    1. MS does not own OpenGL - it is an open standart
    2. MS can not enforce any patents they bought from SGI because when a feature is added to OpenGL all ARB members agree to give their relevant patents under an "ARB Contributor License"(or something like that).
    3. MS will have a hard time enforcing any new patents. To quote Neil Trevett from 3Dlabs:
    "To affect the creation of a specification, an IP claim must make it impossible to create ANY implementation of the specification that doesn't infringe that IP." You can not patent antialiasing/multitexture/shaders/etc, you can patent only specific alghos that implement that functionality.

  • I looked at the opengl.org site, as well as sgi.com and mesa3d.org, but the most recent spec I can find is for OpenGL 1.3

    Has the spec been released, or is it only available to ARB members?

  • Does anyone know a good source for updated development tools (sdks)?

    <a href="http://www.opengl.org">www.opengl.org</a> seems a touch or two out of date, linking only to old SGI and MS sdk's (1.2's?). even 1.3's would be a fresh relief.

    my opengl coding could use a breath of fresh life.

    thanks
    myren

  • "At a glance" - and the IP issues (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tlambert ( 566799 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2002 @03:06PM (#3903735)
    Here is the "at a glance" from the web site:
    New OpenGL 1.4 Core Features at-a-Glance
    • Depth textures and shadow textures, enabling real-time shadows and related image-based rendering techniques
    • Vertex programming framework, setting the stage for user-defined geometry, lighting and shading programs and enabling high-level general-purpose shading languages
    • Automatic texture mipmap generation, providing rapid updates and high-quality texture filtering for dynamic textures
    • Numerous smaller enhancements including:
    • Multiple draw arrays, for higher geometry throughput
    • Window raster position, for precise 2D and image rendering
    • User-defined fog coordinate, for advanced fog effects
    • User-defined secondary color, point parameters, texture level-of-detail bias, texture crossbar, and new frame buffer blending modes and stenciling functions for more flexible shading and rendering effects
    So, yes, it includes the disputed Vertex shading that Microsoft claims is under patent not publically licensed, as it was before it acquired the patent from SGI.

    Since SGI got the GPL religion, for them to have agreed to the inclusion of the technology in the specification implies that they think the patent is not enforcible, and that their license is still valid.

    It would be nice if SGI would state a position on this and clear up the fud, wouldn't it?

    -- Terry
    • > So, yes, it includes the disputed Vertex shading >that Microsoft claims is under patent not publically >licensed, as it was before it acquired the patent >from SGI.

      Read a little closer: "Vertex programming framework, setting the stage for user-defined geometry, lighting and shading programs". This isn't the actual vertex shading, its just a framework for vertex/pixel programs.
      • That may be; but as soon as you *fill in* that framework at its attach points, you are back to facing the IP issue, aren't you?

        The existance of the framework encourages the use of technology that fills the hole... just as a pothole in the road wants to be filled.

        It seems to me that we will end up with it as an "optional implementation item", which means "implemented in Windows and not elsewhere because of the patents", unless SGI steps up and answers the $64,000 question: is their grant of license still valid now that they've sold the patents to Microsoft... or isn't it?

        -- Terry

Slashdot Top Deals

All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to Gaussian noise. -- James Martin

Close