OpenGL (and DirectX)

[G Morgan]

Congratulations, you have been successfully brainwashed by Micro$oft. No, please don't bother backing up your statements.

I haven't been brainwashed by MS, I correctly identified them as a marketing machine afterall. I like SDL, it lets me play games on Linux.

[dio525i]

Didn't you have time to type the words out?

who pissed in your coffee?

[Jucato]

Excuse me, but getting back on topic...

I've been silently watching this topic with interest. Recently I've come across this article, and a particular part startled me, mainly because I didn't know about it:

http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000072

I can't help but wonder if the either Novell or the author is aware of the fact that Microsoft owns the patent on OpenGL. SGI used to own the patent, but Microsoft snagged it in one of the infamous "bail-out" deals Microsoft loves to make with struggling competitors. No doubt Microsoft coveted the patent for OpenGL because it was the only credible competition for DirectX. Should OpenGL-based games ever pose a threat to its PC and Xbox game market strategy, Microsoft now has the ability to cause trouble for the competition. Microsoft has hinted at waging patent wars against Linux, and this may be one that it has in mind.

This is coming from a very famous and (IMHO) credible Linux writer, so it's definitely no FUD from Microsoft.

I can't seem to find any "definitive" statement on the net regarding this. Googling only yields articles that are almost 4 years old. If this were true, that Microsoft owns the OpenGL patent and at the same time owns DirectX, wouldn't that be troublesome for Linux?

[G Morgan]

I was told by a games developer I know that MS own the patent for OpenGL as well. It's a question of the license though surely, if the license grants the right to use then the patent is irrelevant.

Anyway no software patents in the EU so no problem for me.

[schurtek]

Here is the official website for OpenGL... from the guys who invented and keep working on it... problem is Microsoft (shudder) don't want to keep up, so you must download the latest version manually...

http://www.sgi.com/products/software/opengl/

[NESFreak]

how come i never heared of microsoft owning opengl at all?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL_...e_Review_Board
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khronos_Group

[jc87]

Didn't you have time to type the words out?

I could be wrong, but I think Half-life 2 uses opengl, and that is the best game I've ever seen on any platform, graphically.

Direct3d unfortunally , but many even better looking than half-life2 use OpenGl , and more will come

[Jucato]

how come i never heared of microsoft owning opengl at all?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL_...e_Review_Board
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khronos_Group

Me, too. I never knew that until I saw that article by coincidence. That's why I'm looking for confirmation.

@G Morgan: If MS owns the patent, wouldn't they have the power to change the license later on if the current license proves unfavorable to them?

[G Morgan]

Right firstly I've heard that MS own the patent from another source that I consider knowledgible (like I said the guy is a games dev). That it was confirmed by another person that seems to consider his source as trustworthy I consider that enough to at least give credance to the idea.

As for licensing, it depends on the license. If originally SGI released the source open on a license that permitted patent use royalty free for all time then any code derived from the code on that license would still have all the rights irrespective of the change of ownership. It's like a contract, MS would still be required to uphold old contracts.

My thinking is:
1. MS thought they could close down SDL but failed due to licensing arrangements
2. Irrespective MS bought so they could import code into DX.

Either way I'd have though an alternative would be useful but prehaps people don't consider it a real issue (not to mention that software patents don't exist in most of the world).