This is getting really sad... OpenGL... wave goodby....

[Hellbinder]

Microsoft is *clarifying* its position of ownership of several key OpenGL features.

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-943111.html

I must say, at one time I was against the ani microsoft movement.. But now.. I kind of hope the Governmet gets rid of them... It is just sad that one company thinks they have the right, or even the need to control every aspect of technology on earth.....

There is no doubt in my mind that they have nothing but ill intentions with this coearse of action. It is apparent that the few companies that can afford to sue them will try....

Sad...

 

[V3]

That's really sad. What was SGI thinking selling their patent to MS. If they were smart, they should just charge license fee to MS.

 

[Username]

I suppose next time the OpenGL ARB snubs Microsoft's very influential partner, more thought will be given to the consequences.

OpenGL isnt dead, Microsoft isnt going to hijack anything, this is mostly Microsoft firing a shot over the shoulder of the other kids who want to gang up on the big kid on the yard.

 

[Geeforcer]

I suppose next time the OpenGL ARB snubs Microsoft's very influential partner, more thought will be given to the consequences.

OpenGL isnt dead, Microsoft isnt going to hijack anything, this is mostly Microsoft firing a shot over the shoulder of the other kids who want to gang up on the big kid on the yard.

Unless MS completely backtracks on their demands, OpenGL is in for some fundamental changes. I guess you could say that OpenGL as it exists right now would be dead.

 

[jjayb]

The one thing that may save opengl was stated in the article.

This in itself may raise questions: if SGI or another company contributed to OpenGL on the basis that they would not assert their IP rights, it's uncertain whether the companies can then sell the IP to Microsoft for it to begin asserting those rights.

I would think they couldn't sell it to someone else if it was already given to opengl to use. But then again, I'm not a lawyer.

 

[Fuz]

I think this is really sad news for MicrosoftGL .....oops, I mean OpenGL

Even though it many not be that drastic as some may think, this sort of action doesn't really help in the advancement of OpenGL. If anything, it slows it down, makes it less accessible for the not so $fortunate$ companies.

Could some one please point out any possitive aspects of this move by MS? I really can not see one, ignoring the obvious advantages for MS.

 

[Hellbinder]

This is quite obviously the begining of them doing away with it forever.

 

[Nagorak]

Microsoft sucks.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Of course, what it appears they are claiming IP rights to is an implementation on ARB vertex shader extensions I think, which are only due to be in OpenGL in 1.4 or 1.5 - IP claims by Microsoft (and an unwillingness by many of the ARB members to concede to MS's demands) could put more emphasis on getting OpenGL2.0 readied...

 

[duffer]

Hellbinder, the zdnet article you linked to contains no new information -- it's just a rehash of the already public ARB meeting notes and some "the sky is falling" quotes from random people.

 

[pascal]

Of course, what it appears they are claiming IP rights to is an implementation on ARB vertex shader extensions I think, which are only due to be in OpenGL in 1.4 or 1.5 - IP claims by Microsoft (and an unwillingness by many of the ARB members to concede to MS's demands) could put more emphasis on getting OpenGL2.0 readied...

From the article "Microsoft also added that it may have claims to a technology called fragment shading". Does it mean OpenGL 2.0 ?

 

[Hellbinder]

it may be a *rehash* but it is none the less important. It is no big secret that MS has not been overly excited about OpenGL. regardless of their invlolvement. They have been involved because they have had to due to their interest. They old saying "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" applies here.

They are behind DirectX, we all know it. OpenGL represents competition for their OS in the form of FreeBSD and Linux.

Personally, I think that M$ is going to do away with DirectX and OpenGL in the not to distant future and introduce a new unified Graphics API that will be licenceable to other OS's for a Sizable fee. In this way M$ will maintain and enforce complete control over the 3D industry.

 

[quattro]

firstly, i believe, not everything is as bad as it seems.
secondly, i *love* this kicking and screaming form media about microsoft being evil bastard.
nad lastly, i think the only company that knows for a fact what IP microsoft really owns, SGI, said they can pack and go home, if they are unable to resolve that [trivial?] matter. And i hope i dod not misunderstood SGi statement - it was not meant like "oh geez, MS 0wnz ur scphincters now, let us cry a river" but "cmon guys, this is really trivial, and it is stupid to argue about."
so, as far as i have seen MS has a patent for some SGI chip. that chip odd not support vertex or pixel shaders in any way. yet patent claims some shading operations, T&L engine and implies that it can cover term "fragment" also. if you ask me, MS claim is vain. looks like they believe they own TERMS like vertex shading and fragment (correct me if i'm wrong, but fragment = pixel in OGL speak?).
also, it seems weird to me, that microsift excersised their IP claim on OGL ARB meeting, yet they did nothing when nvidia added T&L to gaming cards, and the same goes with shaders. also, proprietary extensions did not seem to bother them, but now they claim ip when gl_vertex_program goes to ARB. speculation: is that why ati and matrox were rpoposing the other (albeit uglier, form the developer's point of wiev) way of dealing with vertex shaders?
oh, yeah, everything is possible. Michael Jackson owns IP rights of Beatles songs. sad enough. but, this is how it should be, acording to america. And john lennon spins in his grave so fast, they are using him as a cooling fan in heaven.

 

[Bjorn]

One thing though (warning, this coming from a simple java programmer who knows nothing or close to nothing about graphics programming).

We're moving away from Open GL and Direct X onto shading languages (language - compiler - open gl/direct x - hardware).

Isn't the open gl/direct x part going to become more and more obsolote then ?
I mean, why compile to open gl/directx calls when you can compile directly to the hardware ?

Which i guess would mean that M$ claims here would become more and more of a non issue. Or am i missing something ?

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Will anyone make a freakin petition?

Anyway, I have an opinion in a way that it could be good. I also can name negatives as well a spositives. I just can't be bothered typing them out yet.

 

[Basic]

Bjorn:
Not realy. Shader languages like Cg isn't supposed to compete with OGL/D3D. It's either a part of it, or partly on top of it. In either case it's not going to hide the underlying API. It only concerns a small part of what the API is doing. The only changes to the CPU programming is like instead of calling the OGL/D3D texture stage setup functions, you'll call a function that inserts the HL shader (complied or as source). There's still a lot more other stuff you need to do in OGL/D3D.

 

[Bjorn]

Bjorn:
Not realy. Shader languages like Cg isn't supposed to compete with OGL/D3D. It's either a part of it, or partly on top of it. In either case it's not going to hide the underlying API. It only concerns a small part of what the API is doing. The only changes to the CPU programming is like instead of calling the OGL/D3D texture stage setup functions, you'll call a function that inserts the HL shader (complied or as source). There's still a lot more other stuff you need to do in OGL/D3D.

Ok, but while this is true now, how about in 2-3 years or more and narrowed down to just shaders (pixel, vertex) ?