OpenGL 1.4 Spec Finalized

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.

Comments

Re:Didn't Microsoft just do something with this?

[sl3xd]

SGI is still in charge?

SGI isn't 'in charge' per se; the ARB is (the ARB consists of various hardware & software makers, including Microsoft, nVIDIA, ATI, Matrox, SGI, Sun, and Evans & Sutherland). However, OpenGL is a trademark of SGI, so they get to make the announcement.

OpenGL 2.0

[f00Dave]

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.....

Re:"Intellectual property" issues??

[mh_tang]

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?

Get real.

[freuddot]

we should work on our own Open Source 3D standard and give it away as Free Software

This is exactly what OpenGL is. An Open specification so that any the same 3D code can run on any hardware/platform/OS.

If it is Open, and succesfull, don't worry, MS will implement it. That's why there is the ICD mechanism on Windows, that all vendors respect.

On Linux, you have the OpenGL ABI that provides the same functionnality. Yes, they would need some more people, but the one they have do a good job.

Now, when you are Open like this, be prepared for competition. The new standard is out, people on the Architecture Review Board have been discussing it for quite a long while. You better have your implementation ready. Or people will go to better support platform.

What you propose is exactly what MS always did : shun away from standards, and try to develop stuff for your platform/OS. The only difference is that you don't have enough market share to do *any* difference.

So, please, cut your crap, follow the standard, and may the best hardware run on the OS with the better/faster support for it.

At the moment, Linux is still in the race (for OpenGL support) and superior in other area. Don't give up.

Re:bad news for Linux?

[Creepy]

um, it doesn't work that way.

First, M$ doesn't give a rip about OpenGL 1.4, and will probably leave nVidia or some other company to do the work of writing to the spec.

Second, Mesa is a free implementation of OpenGL APIs (OpenGL compatible library). I'm sure Mesa's author(s) have already started moving to 1.4.

Third, writing a new Linux library doesn't address the fact that 90%+ of games are written for Windows using DirectX. Creating a new API won't help this unless you do the same thing as OpenGL is doing, which is write cross-platform for Windows, as well as Linux (and maybe other OS's).

Fourth, patents exist on just about anything you can do with computer graphics (CG). OpenGL ARB members share their patents in an effort to make a unified standard and make it affordable for consumers. Microsoft owns some of these patents, mainly through purchased companies, which is why OpenGL Architecture Review Board (ARB) is worried that they could push high licensing fees rather than share patents. It is in Microsoft's best interest to charge money for these patents, especially unreasonable amounts of it, because it makes DirectX the only affordable option and locks you into Microsoft software and x86 hardware.

Re:Carmack dumping OpenGL

[scott1853]

Bullshit. The last .plan read:

I am now committed to supporting an OpenGL 2.0 renderer for Doom through all
the spec evolutions. If anything, I have been somewhat remiss in not pushing
the issues as hard as I could with all the vendors. Now really is the
critical time to start nailing things down, and the decisions may stay with
us for ten years.

SGI PR ERROR

[Funk_dat69]

This was a PR error by SGI.
The vote has NOT been completed yet.

Re:"Intellectual property" issues??

[Creepy]

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.

FUD fighting

[GeLeTo]

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.

"At a glance" - and the IP issues

[tlambert]

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