Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pixar Demos Newly Open-Sourced OpenSubdiv Graphics Tech

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the world-improving dept.

Graphics 140

An anonymous reader writes "Last week at SIGGRAPH, Pixar Animation Studios announced OpenSubdiv, an open source implementation of the Renderman subdivision surface technology, thus releasing the patents to the long standing Pixar 'secret sauce.' In addition to the offline subdivision scheme, it also includes a GPU implementation. This video demonstrates a realtime deforming subdivision surface running at 50 FPS in Maya (though it is freely available to use anywhere). The source code is available on Pixar's GitHub account." Says the project's site: "OpenSubdiv is covered by the Microsoft Public License, and is free to use for commercial or non-commercial use. This is the same code that Pixar uses internally for animated film production."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Opensource and MPL? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40959469)

What the fucking fuck?!

Re:Opensource and MPL? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40959553)

Can anyone explain what the consequences of it being released under Microsoft Public License are? Is it toxic to OSS ecosystem, or is it just GPL incompatible (and presumably part of the "extend" part of MS's attack on FOSS)?

Re:Opensource and MPL? (5, Informative)

Stewie241 (1035724) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959599)

According to wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :

This is the least restrictive of the Microsoft licenses and allows for distribution of compiled code for either commercial or non-commercial purposes under any license that complies with the Ms-PL. Redistribution of the source code itself is permitted only under the Ms-PL.[12] Initially titled Microsoft Permissive License, it was renamed to Microsoft Public License while being reviewed for approval by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). The license was approved on October 12, 2007 along with the Ms-RL.[11] According to the Free Software Foundation, it is a free software license but not compatible with the GNU GPL.[6]

Re:Opensource and MPL? (5, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959617)

Wikipedia is wrong. From opensourcelegal.org [opensourcelegal.org] , it is compatible with the GPL, but only with GPLv3. GPLv2 is incompatible with patent retaliation clauses. GPLv3 is not.

Incidentally, GPLv2 without an "and later" clause is also incompatible with GPLv3 for the same reason.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40960749)

Not surprising, since GPLv3 is the most toxic license.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40960881)

It's or later, not and later.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40961047)

It bears mentioning that the most popluar and robust OSS 3D package, Blender, uses GPLv3 and therefore this technology can't be implemented in it, as-is. That's sad because Blender really is a poster child for successful OSS. I'm a little biased because I use it constantly, but it's still unfortunate, because that would be one of the most obvious applications for this.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (1)

MassacrE (763) | more than 2 years ago | (#40961097)

Why wouldn't it be usable as-is? The license is GPL v3-compatible

Re:Opensource and MPL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40961955)

Surely the most obvious implementer would be Aqsis, the free Renderman renderer. Blender users then get this technology via Mosaic plugin.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (1)

fsterman (519061) | more than 2 years ago | (#40961697)

Open Source Legal is wrong, at least according to FSF [gnu.org] and the Ms-PL license text,
"If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution."

I.E. Anyone outside of the MS ecosystem shall not directly use our code. Granted, piping is always an option, even with GPLv3, but this is an anti Free software clause aimed directly keeping "shared source" away from actual open source implementation.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (3, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40962061)

Uh... there's no such thing as a license that doesn't require you to distribute the code under that license, and requiring someone to include a complete copy of the license is also pretty much the norm. By your definition, all non-GPL licenses are incompatible with the GPL. Sorry, but licenses don't work that way. GPL-compatible does not mean that you can simply copy and paste code willy-nilly into a GPL project.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40962383)

And so I pass.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (0)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959607)

It looks toxic. An intentionally toxic license by Microsoft with patent ties, or in other words, a patent grant that ties it to the Microsoft license thus being incompatible with all the open source licenses people actually want to use. [gnu.org] And the patents are all bogus no doubt, they are the "my lawyer budget is bigger than yours" kind of intellectual property. Prove me wrong please, I would love that, but I am not optimistic.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959669)

Care to explain why? Other than the one liner on the GNU page saying that it's incompatible with the GPL.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40960267)

all the open source licenses people actually want to use

I don't see how it's incompatible with the Apache, MIT and BSD licenses...

Re:Opensource and MPL? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40960495)

It looks toxic.

I feel the same way about GPL.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40961201)

Agreed.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40961211)

GPL is like herpes. Explains a lot about freetards really.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40959647)

Per wikipedia, GNU considers MSPL a free license, but incompatible with GPL.

It said that the binaries could be distributed under other licenses, but the source must only be distributed under the MSPL.

Haven't read MSPL conditions yet, to see if this is scary or not. Per that same wikipedia page, MS has a ton of licenses of various freedom/restriction, and this one is the "most free".

Seems an odd choice of "open source" license-- promotes freedom of binary distribution, and restricts freedom of source distribution.

Is any existing free software 3d stuff Apache or BSD licensed? Because, I don't think this is possible to roll into any GPL licensed applications.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959803)

Seems an odd choice of "open source" license-- promotes freedom of binary distribution, and restricts freedom of source distribution.

Why? They also sell a commercial package with these libraries. They kinda need to distribute binaries...

Re:Opensource and MPL? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40959845)

well if you didn't already know of it....can't be that big a deal. stupid open source geeks

Re:Opensource and MPL? (4, Interesting)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960147)

Why not? To my reading the MSPL is considerably freer than the GPL. It's also a quarter of a page long and written in plain language. It also doesn't seem to conflict with the GPL 3.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40961329)

Ms-PL is basically the same thing as the license Google used for VP8- it just combines the patent grant (unless you sue someone for this) clause with the rest of the "do whatever you want" license while Google treats them as two separate licenses.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (5, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959579)

It's a pretty reasonable open source license, actually. It is basically a BSD license, plus a patent grant, plus a mutually assured destruction clause regarding patent suits. I'm most impressed by the fact that it is about three fewer pages than the average open source license seems to be these days. A normal person might actually be able to comprehend it. :-)

Re:Opensource and MPL? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959603)

Oh, and at a glance, I don't see anything that would be incompatible with GPL v3, which from Microsoft is pretty remarkable.... On the flip side, it is incompatible with GPL v2. This makes it absolutely bizarre and backwards as corporate open source licenses go....

Re:Opensource and MPL? (4, Informative)

makomk (752139) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959695)

It may help if you know that it predates GPLv3, and so was incompatible with the GPL at the time it was created by Microsoft.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (4, Funny)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959853)

My faith in humanity is restored. No, wait....

Re:Opensource and MPL? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40959931)

Of course, GPLv2 was also incompatible with the BSD license and GPLv3.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (2)

ultranova (717540) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960447)

It may help if you know that it predates GPLv3, and so was incompatible with the GPL at the time it was created by Microsoft.

Don't worry, I'm sure there's a Service Pack on its way to deal with this legal bug ;).

Re:Opensource and MPL? (1)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959985)

at a glance, I don't see anything that would be incompatible with GPL v3

You didn't look closely enough.

which from Microsoft is pretty remarkable....

Smells like business as usual to me.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960429)

Care to elaborate on what clause invalidates compatibility with GPL v3 then? Or are you just spreading FUD?

Re:Opensource and MPL? (1)

fsterman (519061) | more than 2 years ago | (#40961707)

From TFL, "If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution."

i.e. totally incompatible with any other major license.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40961977)

I don't think you understand what compatibility is. See: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042451&cid=40960107

Re:Opensource and MPL? (0, Flamebait)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959953)

It's a pretty reasonable open source license, actually. It is basically a BSD license, plus a patent grant, plus a mutually assured destruction clause regarding patent suits....

Let's put that claim to rest right now. It's the opposite of reasonable. Instead the Ms-PL is intentionally designed to divide the open source community. See this informed discussion. [lwn.net]

Re:Opensource and MPL? (0)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960009)

Oh, and let add this: if Pixar is actually genuine they will additionally dual license this code base under LGPL (v3), and I will be impressed. If not... well, each person can interpret that for themselves.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40962149)

Pixar doesn't care what you think. The do not know or care that you exist.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (4, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960107)

Let's put that claim to rest right now. It's the opposite of reasonable. Instead the Ms-PL is intentionally designed to divide the open source community. See this informed discussion. [lwn.net]

Sorry, but that discussion is just about as uninformed as they get. License compatibility does not mean that you can strip off one person's license and copyright and substitute your own. Compatibility means that you can combine the two in a single piece of software. The way you do this is by including one piece of code, complete with license and copyright notice, and call functions in that piece of code from another piece of software with different licensing terms. In no case is code licensed under a different set of terms, except insofar as effectively the product as a whole is governed by the union of the restrictions.

What makes a license incompatible are clauses in one license that do not allow you to impose additional restrictions, coupled with terms in the other license that impose additional restrictions above and beyond what are allowed by the first license. Such a situation does not exist here, so the licenses are compaible.

If your definition of "compatible" requires being able to substitute the GPL's terms, then there's no such thing as a GPL-compatible license other than either a dual-licensed work, a work licensed under the same version of the GPL, or a work in the public domain (and because not all countries recognize the right of an author to place a work in the public domain, there's no such thing as a GPL-compatible license at all by that definition other than a dual-licensed work). Your definition is thus completely unreasonable and nonstandard.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (5, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960189)

Boo hoo. All the criticisms apply equally or more to the GPL. The license seems to be about halfway between the BSD license and the LGPL. You COULD make a library out of the MSPL code and link to it from GPLed code. Unless something in the GPL forbids that.

It's pretty hypocritical to criticize a license for requiring that redistribution of the source of that code or derivatives must be under the same license and then turn around and recommend everyone use the GPL instead.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (1)

SilenceBE (1439827) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960095)

It's a pretty reasonable open source license, actually.

It may be, but it can't be used by Blender [blender.org] for example because it is based on GPL v2 (like a lot of OSS software)

But the good news is that the project leader of Blender, Ton Roosendael, has met with Pixar director Bill Polson and he promised that they would work out the licensing issues.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960119)

Cool. Yeah, GPLv2 is a touchy subject. For that matter, GPL in general is a touchy subject because of all the "no additional restrictions" stuff. That said, for something like Blender, it might make more sense to define a standard plug-in interface and then dynamically load this as a plug-in. Then, the license doesn't matter at all. :-)

Re:Opensource and MPL? (2)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 2 years ago | (#40962767)

Isn't that Blender's problem, then? Why didn't blender make it MSPL so it could be used?

Re:Opensource and MPL? (5, Insightful)

Revotron (1115029) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959591)

...And this type of reaction is why more companies aren't exactly tripping over themselves to open their code.

It's free for non-commercial AND commercial use. What the fuck else do you want? Are you really that offended that their open-source rendering library has the word "Microsoft" even tangentially related to it? Do you really think they would publish it under GPLv3, which could potentially force them to open their entire codebase?

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40959727)

First of all, publishing anything under the GPL can never force the author to open anything. It might prevent them from using modifications of it that are not their own (but no license can guarantee that either). Honestly, your massive misunderstanding of licensing requirements makes all of your "analysis" of the situation suspect.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (0, Flamebait)

Revotron (1115029) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959795)

If you're going to accuse me of something, just say it. Don't be that karma-shielded AC who throws accusations around like playthings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPLv3#Libraries [wikipedia.org]

Richard Stallman and the FSF specifically encourage library-writers to license under the GPL so that proprietary programs cannot use the libraries, in an effort to protect the free-software world by giving it more tools than the proprietary world.

Following this assertion by RMS and the FSF, Pixar's release of their surface rendering library under the GPL would be an immediate violation as their own proprietary rendering systems obviously utilize this library. Therefore, if they wished to release it as GPL, they would subsequently be forced to A) Stop using it outright, or B) GPL their own in-house software that links to it to avoid being in violation of the GPL.

No sir, YOUR massive misunderstanding of licensing requirements makes your "accusations" of me suspect.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40959837)

If you're going to accuse me of something, just say it. Don't be that karma-shielded AC who throws accusations around like playthings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPLv3#Libraries [wikipedia.org]

Richard Stallman and the FSF specifically encourage library-writers to license under the GPL so that proprietary programs cannot use the libraries, in an effort to protect the free-software world by giving it more tools than the proprietary world.

Following this assertion by RMS and the FSF, Pixar's release of their surface rendering library under the GPL would be an immediate violation as their own proprietary rendering systems obviously utilize this library. Therefore, if they wished to release it as GPL, they would subsequently be forced to A) Stop using it outright, or B) GPL their own in-house software that links to it to avoid being in violation of the GPL.

No sir, YOUR massive misunderstanding of licensing requirements makes your "accusations" of me suspect.

Huh? They own the copyright. A copyright holder can never impose limitations on themselves that they don't wish to adhere to. If you read the license on installation, Microsoft gives no one the right to redistribute Windows. Do you think that includes themselves as well somehow?

Either you are willfully ignorant or stupid.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (0)

Revotron (1115029) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959905)

You're comparing apples to oranges. Windows isn't released under the Ms-PL. Try telling Microsoft to give you the source and see what they say.

So you're right about the copyright holder not being limited. A small victory for you on a small oversight by me. And what about the other animation studios who use proprietary products like Maya? Releasing OpenSubdiv under the GPL would fuck them over, because now they're barred from using it just because RMS can't sleep at night knowing that free software might be working hand-in-hand with proprietary code. OH NOEZ!!! Guess they better start training all their staff on Blender.

And wow, a little early for the ad hominems to start flying, isn't it? You really must not have much ground to stand on.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40960131)

How would RMS ban anything? That's where you continue to be wrong. There's no reason to demand someone rethink their licensing choice but there's also no truth to the statement that releasing something you own as GPL would limit you, the copyright holder, in any way. It's pure misinformation.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (2)

BronsCon (927697) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960353)

You make a good point, but you're missing a better one. The only way Pixar would ever be required to release *ALL* of their source code, as a result of licensing this module under GPL, is if they were to distribute *ALL* of their binaries, as well. Since they aren't doing this, and they aren't going to do this, they don't have to release source for anything. Now, if GP were in any way correct, they would have to release source for any binaries they distribute that make use of this library, were it released under GPL. But, then, GP couldn't be much further off base, so it's a moot point.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40959869)

Sir, that is wrong. Since that would be a license they are releasing it for OTHERS. They, on the other hand, are the holders of the IP, therefore entitled to use it as they want under any conditions they wish. They also keep the right to re-release it under any other license they want, and hell, even grant others a license that allows any other set of liberties. Therefore, no, they could perfectly release it as GPL and still use it themselves.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (2)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959893)

This is not how copyright works. There is no rule that says that a creator cannot offer their product under many different license terms, nor requiring them to conform to the license terms they require of others. It remains their product to do with as they will until they transfer ownership of the copyright.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959903)

Actually, he's at least partly correct.

The rights holder can release this under the GPL; they just can't use any modifications made to the GPL'd version. Just because they release some code under a license doesn't mean that they, the authors, can't ALSO release it under a more restrictive license for personal use. The GPL gives the author COMPLETE freedom, including the freedom to license their code under other licenses that conflict with it.

Therefore, if they wished to release it as GPL, they would subsequently be forced to A) Stop using it outright, B) GPL theor own in-house software that links to it, or C) keep using it just like they do and not use any changes to the GPL'd version unless the submitter also agreed to contribute the changes to the proprietary version.

Of course, C is often such a headache to manage in reality that most people just use an alternate license that's either GPLv2 or GPLv3 (like this one) compatible.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960253)

Oh please. The GPL does not give the author COMPLETE freedom, copyright law does.

Furthermore, the GPL does not limit what USERS can do, it controls what DISTRIBUTORS must do. So even if your bizarre theory that an author must act under the same terms as he licenses it to others were true (and it most certainly isn't), the GPL wouldn't kick in until they DISTRIBUTED the code. Usage has nothing to do with it.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (1)

didroe84 (1324187) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960283)

I think you're missing D) use whatever changes they like but never distribute their proprietary code to anyone else.

You can use GPL code for anything you like, it's only when you distribute it to someone else that any obligations are imposed on you.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960553)

Following this assertion by RMS and the FSF, Pixar's release of their surface rendering library under the GPL would be an immediate violation as their own proprietary rendering systems obviously utilize this library. Therefore, if they wished to release it as GPL, they would subsequently be forced to A) Stop using it outright, or B) GPL their own in-house software that links to it to avoid being in violation of the GPL.

No.

GPL restricts only what happens to publically available software. Anybody can take and modify GPL code for in-house products as much as they like, it's only when they distribute it that they have to make sourcecode available. Ofcourse "distribute" was somewhat open to interpretation; GPLv3 attempts to fix this.

It just means they can't use any modifications made by other copyright owners, unless they get permission to do so from those other people. This permission would likely take the form of a GPL-incompatible additional license.

Most importantly; only a copyright owner is able to sue for copyright infringement (which is what GPL violations effectively are) and they're unlikely to sue themselves.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (0, Troll)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960053)

It's free for non-commercial AND commercial use. What the fuck else do you want?

In a nutshell, lose the Ms-PL in order to appear genuine and gain the trust of the community. We have seen enough faux-open code bases, thankyou. Let's see proof that this is actually open and not a strategem, in which case Pixar would get the love they deserve.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40960487)

There is nothing disingenuous about MS-PL. Anyone who thinks that way probably has not even read the license and is merely freaking out over some twisted hatred of "Microsoft" being in the name. There's nothing in the license that opens you up to some sort of trap. You really shouldn't get butt hurt just because it wasn't released under the GPL. I'm sure you'd get your panties in a twist even if it were BSD.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960497)

Here is your proof.

Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL)

This license governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, you accept this license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the software.
1.Definitions
The terms "reproduce," "reproduction," "derivative works," and "distribution" have the same meaning here as under U.S. copyright law.
A "contribution" is the original software, or any additions or changes to the software.
A "contributor" is any person that distributes its contribution under this license.
"Licensed patents" are a contributor's patent claims that read directly on its contribution.

2.Grant of Rights
(A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its contribution, and distribute its contribution or any derivative works that you create.
(B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in the software or derivative works of the contribution in the software.

3.Conditions and Limitations
(A) No Trademark License- This license does not grant you rights to use any contributors' name, logo, or trademarks.
(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.
(C) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must retain all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices that are present in the software.
(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license.
(E) The software is licensed "as-is." You bear the risk of using it. The contributors give no express warranties, guarantees, or conditions. You may have additional consumer rights under your local laws which this license cannot change. To the extent permitted under your local laws, the contributors exclude the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (5, Funny)

mkiwi (585287) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960191)

Let me explain the license in simple slashdot terms:

1. The license was penned by Microsoft, therefore it is evil.
2. Pixar is releasing the code. Pixar was financed by Steve Jobs into a multi-billion dollar corporation. Corporations and Steve Jobs are evil, therefore the only logical thing to conclude about Pixar's intentions is that they are evil.
3. The license is not GPL, or some similar Google license, so it is patent encumbered. Patents are evil, so the code is evil.
4. Any open source code should be GPLv3 because RMS says so, therefore the everything about this code dump is designed to embrace, extend, and extinguish s some already existing but half done FOSS alternative. That is evil.

How could this code and its license be any more evil? I've just proved to you that this whole thing is like the spawn of Satan––or Blizzard entertainment, 'cause they can't fix Diablo III.

Discuss below.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (2)

ultranova (717540) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960541)

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40961189)

This! I manage a thousand+ person software development group at a huge corporation and the only reason we do not release all our software as open source is because we are afraid that someone on slashdot might be a dick about it.

Re:Opensource and MPL? (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#40961785)

And this type of reaction is why more companies aren't exactly tripping over themselves to open their code

Actually they are opening things up. Even things like the source code for the old CDE desktop are being made available (just for an example from the last week), despite having multiple owners that all had to agree and all who were earlier suspicious of the idea of providing their source code.
Your other stuff is a bit out there since nobody is stupid enough to release a commercial product under a short one page licence they have not read.

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40959497)

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, She is Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.

Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

FROM -> Man - how many times have I dusted you in tech debates that you have decided to troll me by ac posts for MONTHS now, OR IMPERSONATING ME AS YOU DID HERE and you were caught in it by myself & others here, only to fail each time as you have here?)...

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40959513)

Disproof of all apk's statements: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040317&cid=40946043 [slashdot.org]
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040729&cid=40949719 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040697&cid=40949343 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040597&cid=40948659 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3037687&cid=40947927 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040425&cid=40946755 [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040317&cid=40946043 [slashdot.org]
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038791&cid=40942439 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3024445&cid=40942207 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038597&cid=40942031 [slashdot.org]
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038601&cid=40942085 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040803&cid=40950045 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040867&cid=40950563 [slashdot.org]
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040921&cid=40950839 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041035&cid=40951899 [slashdot.org]
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041081&cid=40952169 [slashdot.org]
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041091&cid=40952383 [slashdot.org]
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40952991 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041313&cid=40954201 [slashdot.org]
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042199&cid=40956625 [slashdot.org]
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029723&cid=40897177 [slashdot.org]
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029589&cid=40894889 [slashdot.org]
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3027333&cid=40886171 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042451&cid=40959497 [slashdot.org]
AND MANY MORE

Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40959981)

Ludwig Plutonium, is that you?

Over my dead body (5, Funny)

rachit (163465) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959561)

Apparently they open sourced it over Steve Job's dead body.

Re:Over my dead body (5, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959633)

So you suggest that they should have used the OSJDB Public License?

Re:Over my dead body (1)

BronsCon (927697) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960403)

Yes, and to make it not completely obvious, we should expand it as Open Source Junk Distribution Blessing or some other such (I didn't want to stare at thesaurus.com's ugly-ass site for any longer than it took to find something that just barely worked for the B).

Re:Over my dead body (1, Informative)

tooyoung (853621) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959783)

Apparently they open sourced it over Steve Job's dead body.

Of course, it's best not to let facts [apple.com] influence your opinion.

Re:Over my dead body (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40959867)

Apparently they open sourced it over Steve Job's dead body.

Of course, it's best not to let facts [apple.com] influence your opinion.

Well... that's just a list of open source libraries Apple has used to their own benefit so it's difficult to discern your point. What's the point of the link?

Re:Over my dead body (1)

SilenceBE (1439827) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960151)

OpenCL [wikipedia.org]
Webkit [webkit.org]
Bonjour [apple.com]
Clang [llvm.org]
libdispatch [macosforge.org]
....
So wat is the point you are trying to prove ?

Re:Over my dead body (3, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40961655)

Uhhh...wasn't those all things that ALRAEDY were Open Source and Apple just threw some money at them? I know webkit was KHTML from the KDE guys and frankly wouldn't be surprised if the others are similarly open source software that Apple found useful and decided to sink some money into.

After all Microsoft is in the top 10 when it comes to contributions to the Linux kernel, that don't make them a friend of Linux.

Re:Over my dead body (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40962721)

I'm not certain about lib dispatch, but CUPS is almost entirely an Apple-originated project.

Re:Over my dead body (1)

iCEBaLM (34905) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959871)

Man, you must be a hoot at parties.

Re:Over my dead body (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40960695)

Absolutely. One of the advantages of being an owl.

Re:Over my dead body (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40960065)

If Pixar and open source then a predictable comment from an arsehole.

Yep, this is still Slashdot.

Re:Over my dead body (1)

phrostie (121428) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960413)

Will they give back BMRT now?

Does not make sense to me (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959611)

"an open source implementation of the Renderman subdivision surface technology, thus releasing the patents to the long standing Pixar 'secret sauce."

The Renderman Interface spec already contains how the subdivision surfaces are supposed to be described and computed, so we know how to do that. There are already other implementations. Moreover, publishing the source code does not "release patents" in any meaningful sense, not to mention the fact that patents are, by definition, public.

Re:Does not make sense to me (4, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959661)

Moreover, publishing the source code does not "release patents" in any meaningful sense...

Actually, in this case, it does. The Microsoft Public License has an explicit patent grant for all included technology.

Re:Does not make sense to me (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959705)

Which means that if I write my own implementation, I'm still not covered. Well, it's just as well that I don't live in the US.

Re:Does not make sense to me (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959851)

IANAL, but since it specifies "derivative works" as being covered, I think you could write your own implementations, especially if you included even a tiny snippet of the original code. Might have to license it under the same license, though (again, not a lawyer so I'm not sure)

Re:Does not make sense to me (2)

tian2992 (1690038) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959675)

Did you read the MS-PL? The licence they are using to release it includes a patent grant, and a potential protection on patent suits.

Re:Does not make sense to me (4, Informative)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959691)

You should read the license. It includes a worldwide, royalty free license grant. It does indeed "release patents" with the small qualification that if you sue Pixar for patent infringement your royalty free license is automatically yanked.

Re:Does not make sense to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40961159)

I think that they're bastically interested in having 3rd party tools be more compatible with their own stuff. Watch the demo and that's pretty apparent.

Can't wait to see what comes... (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959615)

With the libraries open, it should be interesting to see what comes of it. It lowers the barriers to entry in the rendering package world... And no one can say it is not commercial grade code. :)

Countdown to Madness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40959725)

Uh-oh. Source code is licensed under the Ms-PL. Ignorant anti-Microsoft flame-war igniting in 3... 2... 1... Duck and cover!

Re:Countdown to Madness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40959781)

You were a bit late. That's the first post!

does this mean it can be used in FPSes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40959791)

they are articulating it in real time! having graphics like this in videogames would be really amazing.

As good a time as any (4, Interesting)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959885)

Our intent is to encourage high performance accurate subdiv drawing by giving away the "good stuff".

I want to be wrong about this. I really do. But I read this as "our intent is to establish a tie to our proprietary products Renderman and Maya via a license carefully designed by Microsoft to be incompatible with GPL, and thus Blender."

Well, this would be as good a time as any to point out that Maya is not the only game in town. There is Blender of course. And there is my as-yet-unannounced project based on a half edge meshing technology that is way superior to the creaky old infrastructure Maya relies on. There are already some great results in terms of high complexity meshes and excellent real time performance. So far it has been just me pushing on the code, but that should change pretty soon. Go here [phunq.net] to find out about World Welder. Check out some demo images here [phunq.net] , here [phunq.net] and here [phunq.net] . Those are all high triangle count, high complexity meshes rendering at smooth interactive frame rates on low end hardware. There are various algorithms in use. The 3D Freetype Unicode fonts are done with Root3 subdivision, arguably superior to Catmull Clark favored by the Maya crowd. Still lots of work to do to implement boundaries, creases, deformable heirarchy and the like, but the base it's built on is solid as a rock. And really compact as well, yes sometimes you can have it all. Anyway, I will be making a more official project announcement in due course but for now, a tarball is online here [phunq.net] . I apologize in advance for the documentation quality, but not for the code quality. Please be kind to my server and don't browse all the images, it's just a cable modem with pathetic upload bandwidth. (By the way, sponsorship in the form of web hosting would be much appreciated.)

There remains much work to do, sigh, there always is. But this is already the skeleton of a nice 3D meshing workbench, and it is time to put some meat on the bones. Language is C++11, scripting is Lua, GUIs are GLX and QT, revision control is Mercurial, license is GPLv3. Anybody who wants to join the mailing list is more than welcome, developers and future users alike.

Re:As good a time as any (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40959977)

So what you're saying is that the GPL is restricting Blender from working with libraries that are not licensed under GPL?

Re:As good a time as any (2, Interesting)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960025)

You've got things backwards. It's the MSPL is engineered to be a poison pill. The GPL is much older and much more well established.

It's anything newer that's going out of it's way to be hostile to the GPL or copyleft generally.

Re:As good a time as any (0)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960209)

Like the GPL v3?

Re:As good a time as any (5, Informative)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#40959989)

Our intent is to encourage high performance accurate subdiv drawing by giving away the "good stuff".

I want to be wrong about this. I really do. But I read this as "our intent is to establish a tie to our proprietary products Renderman and Maya via a license carefully designed by Microsoft to be incompatible with GPL, and thus Blender."

You'll be happy to know then that you're likely at least partially wrong.
First: http://www.blender.org/BL/ [blender.org] -- from this, you may conclude that their intent is to force Blender to activate the Blender License.
Second: Blender is licensed under "GNU General Public License v2 or later" -- and that "or later" bit is key here, as the MS-PL is compatible with GPLv3, just not with GPLv2. The end result of this is that the code is compatible with any GPLv3 code *and* any GPLv2 code with the "or later" clause that is used with Blender libraries and derivatives. It should also be compatible with the LGPL.

Re:As good a time as any (5, Interesting)

poly_pusher (1004145) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960057)

Being a 3D artist this does interest me. I use Modo, Maya, Zbrush, and Mudbox frequently and subd standard is very useful. Does your intended implementation share subdivision order Pixar's spec? Does UV smoothing result in identical UV borders? Currently this is a pretty big problem with multi-app workflows. For instance, a multiresolution mesh that has been smoothed in Zbrush results in different smoothing than a mesh that is smoothed with Pixar Psub subdivision surfaces in Modo. Even more confusing is that this difference also appears when comparing Mudbox to Modo. They both use the Catmull Clark subdivision standard however do not share identical UV smoothing. This can be overcome with linear UV's but that in itself causes problems for 2d texture painting. They do however seem to share point order from tests that I've done. Open-source subdivision technology originating from Pixar sounds like a wonderful thing that could alleviate some of the problems I mentioned. After all it's coming from the source of subdivision technology. Catmull Clark subdivision was created by Ed Catmull of Pixar and Jim Clark, co-founder of Silicon Graphics. Many of the custom implementations of subdivison surfaces I have seen cause a lot of problems on exchange. Modo's custom implementation of subd's prior to incorporation of Pixar Psub was pretty slick actually. It was fast, allowed for N-gons and supported some very dirty edge creasing. So it had big drawbacks when exchanging with other apps like Maya before they added Psub's. I guess my point in mentioning all this is that I hope what you are working on is capable of accommodating these kinds of needs, otherwise I and many other artists may not be able to use it due to workflow additions. Although it's very cool and I'd love to hear more about what you are doing.

Re:As good a time as any (2)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 2 years ago | (#40962729)

Being a 3D artist this does interest me. I use Modo, Maya, Zbrush, and Mudbox frequently and subd standard is very useful. Does your intended implementation share subdivision order Pixar's spec? Does UV smoothing result in identical UV borders?

Pixar compatibility is not a feature I intend to code myself, however anybody who wants to take it on is welcome. The World Welder meshing API is clean, powerful, efficient and nice to work with. Currently, there is no UV interpolation in the subdivision algorithms at all, that work is upcoming. Any acceptable interpolation must produce identical UV at matching borders, anything else is a bug.

Open-source subdivision technology originating from Pixar sounds like a wonderful thing that could alleviate some of the problems I mentioned. After all it's coming from the source of subdivision technology. Catmull Clark subdivision was created by Ed Catmull of Pixar and Jim Clark, co-founder of Silicon Graphics.

To tell the truth, Catmull-Clark was the first and worst of the crop of modern subdivision algorithms. It has terrible behavior when valence varies, and valence does vary a lot in many practical situations. On the whole, Root3 kicks Catmull-Clark to the far side of the moon in terms of predictable behavior, tolerance of a wide variety of mesh topologies, and unlumpy, uncrinkled results. Root3 actually has a pretty carefully considered mathematical basis whereas Catmull-Clark is more like mathematical goulash, with its blending constants basically pulled out of thin air. Its main redeeming quality is, it has been implemented a lot, a lot of artists have learned to work around its nasty bugs, and as you allude to, you can **sometimes** port meshes between different tools. I don't care about it a whole lot, but anybody who does is welcome to send patches.

I guess my point in mentioning all this is that I hope what you are working on is capable of accommodating these kinds of needs, otherwise I and many other artists may not be able to use it due to workflow additions. Although it's very cool and I'd love to hear more about what you are doing.

Points noted. I will not do this particular work myself but I will place it in a respectable position on the todo list for potential contributors. I'm actually more interested in pushing forward with the kind of modeling that will make you not want to bother with the proprietary tools you mentioned. Do be sure to check out the demo pictures and ask yourself whether Maya can even do some of those things in any reasonable way.

Re:As good a time as any (2)

Lose (1901896) | more than 2 years ago | (#40960963)

While its just a YouTube comment, it seems a Pixar representative made some comments of his own. Amongst them was one which explicitly stated that Blender can implement OpenSubdiv [youtube.com] if they wanted to.

Of course the comment holds no legal weight whatsoever, but its an encouraging sign.

A snip from that comment (emphasis mine):

OpenSubdiv is a free open-source API : any software vendor can implement our code in their application, including Maya, 3DS Max, Mudbox, Mari or Blender. The implementation is based on a joint research effort between Pixar and Microsoft Research.

Jesus Christ! (3)

jackbird (721605) | more than 2 years ago | (#40961411)

Can you people stop pissing and moaning and hairsplitting about license terms and allow some discussion of what this tech means for the medium-term future?

A few questions I'd certainly love to get answered from someone who's knowledgeable:

-Is this the REYES algorythm?
-Does it differ in important ways from the Catmull-Clark subdivision that's pretty much standard in off-the-shelf 3D software?
-With the increasing prevalence of raytraced GPU/coprocessor rendering replacing rasterisation in near-realtime applications, is this tech now mostly irrelevant?
-What are some things the release of this technology might make possible?
-Does this have any impact on the patent encumbrance surrounding Renderman's nearly-free motion blur?
-How much longer were those REYES patents going to last anyway?

Re:Jesus Christ! (4, Informative)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#40961639)

"-Is this the REYES algorithm?"

No

"-Does it differ in important ways from the Catmull-Clark subdivision that's pretty much standard in off-the-shelf 3D software?"

No. It is that exactly. But GPU accelerated so it runs in realtime.

"-With the increasing prevalence of raytraced GPU/coprocessor rendering replacing rasterisation in near-realtime applications, is this tech now mostly irrelevant?"

No. You still need geometry to render, whether you use ray tracing or not.

"-What are some things the release of this technology might make possible?"

Prettiness. In realtime.

"-Does this have any impact on the patent encumbrance surrounding Renderman's nearly-free motion blur?"

No.

"-How much longer were those REYES patents going to last anyway?"

Don't know. Off topic.

Hmm... (4, Insightful)

sootman (158191) | more than 2 years ago | (#40961671)

There are currently 12 comments at +5 and only one talks about the software--the other 11 are about the license. Dropping down to +3 doesn't help any.

Can anyone else here weigh in on the technology itself?

priorities...what's it do for games? (1)

fikx (704101) | more than 2 years ago | (#40962297)

So, will this give games that look like Toy Story?

(Hey, it's been a while since anyone mentioned that, thought I'd bring it back just for old time's sake....although the demo video kinda looks like the jokes not funny anymore...)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?