[Mesa-dev] S2TC - yet another attempt to solve the "S3TC issue"

[Rudolf Polzer]

On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 02:01:44AM -0700, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 05:49:09AM -0700, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > The suggestion however is to include a S2TC-like method with
> > > > Mesa, to
> > > > basically
> > > > make sure that in the long run NO distro has no support for S3TC
> > > > uploading,
> > > > without requiring an extra decision in each distro.
> > > 
> > > I wouldn't oppose bundling S2TC for software renderers, but
> > > enabling S3TC decompression on hardware is an orthogonal matter,
> > > which depends on the licensing terms between the IHV and S3.
> > > 
> > > If you wanna fix this, convince IHVs to fully license the S3TC use
> > > in their hardware for Linux.  So far the only IHV that _seems_ to
> > > have such wide cross-OS license is NVIDIA.
> > > 
> > > I think it would be good to add a FAQ about this in the docs.  But
> > > I'm done with this stupid thread.  I'll enjoy my vacation and stop
> > > wasting time with this nonsense.
> > 
> > In other words: you want the EXISTING support in Mesa to upload S3TC
> > compressed
> > textures (pre-compressed, not runtime compressed) to the hardware
> > removed.
> 
> I couldn't let this statements go unchallenged..
> 
> The option in question is disabled by default, and I don't agree this is
> inducing in infringement in any way as we always highlighted the S3TC
> pitfalls in the mailing lists, and the IHV's S3TC licensing terms have not
> been disclosed, but I agree that at the very least we should better document
> this option in docs/patents.txt, to avoid misunderstandings as you're having,
> and yes, probably also have the option disabled by default with a configure
> option, as we do with floating point textures, which the drivers may override
> or not, as the breadth of S3TC license of the target hardware is known.
> 
> Thanks for pointing this issue out, Rudolf.  Thanks for playing devil's
> advocate in a public forum, and forcing us to take a stricter stand on this
> matter.  I am confused though, because I thought you were trying to help the
> Linux community, not the patent trolls.

I was trying to help the Linux communtiy, but apparently I failed.

Looks like all this work I did was for nothing. Nothing is appreciated, all is
"Not Invented Here".

How else should I have brought this up? I still don't understand WHY this is an
issue. Is US patent law really that retarded? I still can't believe this, as to
me that would mean that Apache would have needed a patent license in order to
transport GIF files back then (or at least, to assign the content type
"image/gif" in the default config).

Best regards,

Rudolf Polzer