Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Claims IP Rights on Portions of OpenGL

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the thanks-sgi dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Minutes of the latest OpenGL ARB meeting reveal that Microsoft is claiming IP over the vertex and fragment extensions, both critical for exposing the capabilities of modern graphics hardware. The minutes also include an update on the progress of OpenGL 2.0." The question is, what does this mean for Linux -- how will Microsoft exercise their "rights"?

9 of 361 comments (clear)

  1. Mono developers beware (semi-OT) by Dr.+Awktagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ahh, how appropriate, I was just going to make a post on the "donate to Gnome" thread about how this whole Mono thing is a disaster waiting to happen (i.e., Microsoft will activate the .NET "poison pill" as soon as Mono becomes a threat, through patents or other means, and Mono users will have no place to go but genuine .NET).

    Perhaps this OpenGL bit will blow over, or perhaps we should keep an eye on it as a sort of model for future Microsoft attacks on "open xyz".

    Let's check the link, there are some quotes:

    They're offering to license their IP under reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; will license rights to the extent necessary, provided a reciprocal license is granted to MS. Granted on 1:1 basis for OpenGL 1.3, 1.4, and earlier versions.

    Ahh, there's the magic "reasonable" (to Microsoft) and "non-discriminatory" (except if you don't agree to the terms). How would this cross-licensing apply to implementations other than the official OpenGL?

    Microsoft suggests that other bodies have licensing terms that are more effective in a corporate sense, and we should look at adopting some of those terms.

    Uh huh..what does "more effective in a corporate sense" mean exactly....

    Well I don't know much about OpenGL licensing, or how much of this extension stuff is implemented in non-OpenGL implementations (like Mesa?) so I'll just watch and see what happens.

  2. Yeah... by TheDanish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They'll have patent rights over OpenGL, among other things. Eventually, The Onion's article will be true. Did anyone else think of this?

    http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpatents .html

    It's not too far off.

    --
    Danish != nationality
  3. Not just Linux... by zaren · · Score: 5, Insightful

    what about Apple? MacOS does a lot of things with OpenGL too...

    --
    Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!
  4. Re:It's not what it'll do to Linux... by MissMyNewton · · Score: 5, Insightful


    then OpenGL will survive solely on Linux (if it survives at all).

    I'm gonna guess that there are now more MacOSX *desktop* users than Linux *desktop* users, so this could be a shot at Apple, who is moving their gorgeous-but-heavy Aqua interface to OpenGL in Jaguar for the purposes of hardware acceleration...

    I still don't think MS cares a whit about Linux...yet.

    BTW, (responding to a different post), I don't think John Carmack is a fool - if the OpenGL lake dries up, I'd guess he'd go fishing elsewhere...

    --

    ---

    Information wants...you to shut your pie hole.

  5. RAND licensing terms can rule out Open Source by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful
    RAND licensing terms do not necessarily allow Open Source implementations. It sounds like they may be offering OpenGL a royalty-free cross-license, but the terms of another recent Microsoft standards-related license explicitly ruled out GPL and LGPL implementations. They won't accept anything that they can't embrace-and-extend.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  6. Patent farming by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "In a corporate sense" means that other standards bodies allow companies to insert revenue-generating patents into new standards. If MS can get a revenue generating patent into many new standards, it won't even have to sell software any longer. They can just charge everyone else for the right to make software.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  7. Re:If Apple has voting members on the ARB... by zangdesign · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because Apple is a corporate entity, whereas Open Source is a philosophy?

    If you consider the makeup of the board, only IBM has any kind of direct interest in Linux and I really don't think they want Linux for it's amazing leaps forward in GUI design.

    The remainder of the board all have their own fish to fry and none of them are direct contributors to Linux, AFAIK.

    So, boys and girls, time to nut up and get some corporation to back the OpenGL initiative on Linux, which means someone's gonna have to make some bucks off it somewhere to cover the cost of all that politicking.

    --
    To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
  8. Re:It means nothing . by Cryptnotic · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't see why. *smile* To me it sounds like Microsoft would be satisfied if any OpenGL technology developed using their "Intelectual Property" was GPL'd.

    You're being naive. Microsoft doesn't care who implements it. Microsoft can reimplement whatever it wants to. They have more than enough programmers to do so. What Microsoft wants is a free license to use OpenGL 2.0. This is very dangerous, since normally OpenGL implementations need to be certified by the OpenGL group. This certification costs money, which is why the Mesa 3D people weren't allowed to call themselves an OpenGL implementation. If Microsoft can say that their implementation is OpenGL 2.0 without any kind of certification, then their version would be the de facto OpenGL, regardless of what the standard is.

    If the OpenGL group blindly agrees to Microsoft's seemingly generous offer, the lawyers who make the decisions will hopefully explain that signing away liberties is not such a great idea.

    --
    My other first post is car post.
  9. Re:It means nothing . by lpontiac · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It's a bit pre-emptive when we are hanging Microsoft just for having the patents

    Not really. Microsoft has been convicted of anti-trust violations by a court of law. In case you didn't catch that, Microsoft has been convicted of anti-trust violations by a court of law. Just so that everyone is sure to see it:

    Microsoft has been convicted of anti-trust violations by a court of law.

    Integration across markets isn't safe when these guys are involved. Microsoft has demonstrated time and time again that when they have any sort of leverage, the rest of the market suffers.

    They didn't gain these patents in the course of research, they bought them from SGI for $62.5 million. Microsoft doesn't develop graphics hardware, so what could they have in mind for these patents that makes them worth $62.5 million?