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

[Jose Fonseca]

----- Original Message -----
> 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).

I don't have time for a longer reply now, but I do think your S2TC work is interesting, and that you've successfully contoured the patent claims, at least for the decompression, as I didn't look at the compression bits.

But, there was never anything you could have done to improve the situation for GPU S3TC decompression.  It's not just a US patent system vs the rest.  It's complex, but it's all in the archives, as it has all been discussed before.

How should you brought this? You should have assumed that we have our reasons -- after all we've been living under the frustration of these patents, walking on a mine field, for a decade --, instead of assuming we have NIH syndrome.

Jose