Questions about OpenGL Implementation for OS

[slasher]

Hi Guys,
It been a long time since I worked on my operating system. However, I'd like to work on the graphics side of it for a bit to revive my interest in the project.

I do a lot of OpenGL programming and was wondering -
1. Do I have to get permission from Khronos (board that manages OpenGL) or any other body, if I want to create an OpenGL implementation for my Operating system?
2. Is anyone else on this board interested in having an OpenGL implementation for their operating system?

NB: I'm referring to the FIXED PIPELINE.

Thanks
Codeslasher

[JamesM]

Hi Guys,
It been a long time since I worked on my operating system. However, I'd like to work on the graphics side of it for a bit to revive my interest in the project.

I do a lot of OpenGL programming and was wondering -
1. Do I have to get permission from Khronos (board that manages OpenGL) or any other body, if I want to create an OpenGL implementation for my Operating system?
2. Is anyone else on this board interested in having an OpenGL implementation for their operating system?

NB: I'm referring to the FIXED PIPELINE.

Thanks
Codeslasher

Hi,

Yes, I'm interested in having an OpenGL implementation for my OS - I'm currently researching graphics APIs and pipelines, and so I'm not really in a position to advise as yet! I'll be watching this thread though.

Cheers,

James

[Combuster]

Everybody can get the documentation to the opengl standard without unusual restrictions, so there's no reason that you can not implement a version of opengl.

There are two things though:
1) "OpenGL" is under copyright law - So you should watch out when you start promoting it as being opengl since they tend to have restrictions on it (mainly regulations about it adhering to the specs properly)
2) (....) US software patents. (if that applies to you)

[slasher]

Everybody can get the documentation to the opengl standard without unusual restrictions, so there's no reason that you can not implement a version of opengl.

There are two things though:
1) "OpenGL" is under copyright law - So you should watch out when you start promoting it as being opengl since they tend to have restrictions on it (mainly regulations about it adhering to the specs properly)
2) (....) US software patents. (if that applies to you)

Thats what am trying to clarify.

I like the OpenGL way of doing things and have the specifications 1.x - 2.x to work with.

1. How do I make sure I don't get slammed after implementing an "opengl.lib / opengl.dll" for my operating system?
2. What do I need to do so I can say in feature list of my operating system - "Supports basics fuctionality of OpenGl 1.1" ?

There are two things though: "OpenGL" is under copyright law -

Does this mean I can't say - "My os has an openGl implementation"? ( Am not claiming its openGL but my own implementation of the spec)

Can you clarify what you mean by "US Software patents"?
(Am writing it all from scratch not looking at anyone's code.)

Thanks

[Khaoticmind]

For what I know, and as Conbuster said, you can't do an OpenGL implementation without concent from SGI/Kronos or whatever the name of the board is these days. At least not if you clain you are doing an OpenGL implementation.

Take for instance the Mesa library, and their Licensing section:

Mesa is a 3-D graphics library with an API which is very similar to that of OpenGL.* To the extent that Mesa utilizes the OpenGL command syntax or state machine, it is being used with authorization from Silicon Graphics, Inc.(SGI). However, the author does not possess an OpenGL license from SGI, and makes no claim that Mesa is in any way a compatible replacement for OpenGL or associated with SGI. Those who want a licensed implementation of OpenGL should contact a licensed vendor.

Please do not refer to the library as MesaGL (for legal reasons). It's just Mesa or The Mesa 3-D graphics library.

* OpenGL is a trademark of Silicon Graphics Incorporated.

Dunno if this info is accurate, but, if it is, it states a couple of things:
1- You must ask SGI/Kronos to use the OpenGL internals to build your own version
2- If you don't have a license you can't claim your software is an OpenGL implementation (even if it is)

Maybe the opengl.org has some more up to date information regardind licensing...

About the patents... Patents are a trademark of ideas or code, or both.
In some cases you can't use an idea (say, mp3 decodding), simply because some one said this is their idea.
Doesn't matter if its code or no code, its the idea that counts.

[Combuster]

There are two things though: "OpenGL" is under copyright law -

Does this mean I can't say - "My os has an openGl implementation"? ( Am not claiming its openGL but my own implementation of the spec)

You might indeed not be allowed to call it opengl-something, you should look that up as I don't know to what extent you can or cannot use the term.

Can you clarify what you mean by "US Software patents"?
(Am writing it all from scratch not looking at anyone's code.)

Patents disallow you to write code implementing a particular feature, even if you only got the theory and nothing else to look at. Over here, patents on math, algorithms, and software are barred so I could go ahead and write anything without fearing potential lawsuits. In the US that is a different matter (where just writing FAT code allows microsoft to sue you).
Am I glad not to live there

[slasher]

From my understanding of Copyright law,
You can not copyright the idea (eg story of elves, dragons etc) but can copyright the expression of the idea (your story about dragons. Or in the case of software, your implementation)

Patents, I know i can't just use without permission.

So, if I make a system that works like OpenGL but do not call it OpenGL and do not name the funtions glSomething(...) even though internally they work in a similar fashion, Will I be in trouble or breaking any laws? (I don't live in the US and have not looked at the UK laws at the moment)

[Khaoticmind]

From my understanding of Copyright law,
You can not copyright the idea (eg story of elves, dragons etc) but can copyright the expression of the idea (your story about dragons. Or in the case of software, your implementation)

Patents, I know i can't just use without permission.

So, if I make a system that works like OpenGL but do not call it OpenGL and do not name the funtions glSomething(...) even though internally they work in a similar fashion, Will I be in trouble or breaking any laws? (I don't live in the US and have not looked at the UK laws at the moment)

From the wikipedia (not the most reliable source, but hey...)

Copyright applies to any expressible form of an idea or information that is substantive and discrete.

So yeah, copyright is applied to ideas, not just code.
Don't you remember some time ago when MS was trying to copyright the start button?
Or someone else, trying to copyright the mouse buttons or something like that...

But i think the best way to know what you can or can't do is to get in the OpenGL board and ask around

[tantrikwizard]

... Is anyone else on this board interested in having an OpenGL implementation for their operating system?...

Its funny you should bring this up, I was researching it just the other day and came across http://www.mesa3d.org/, an open source OpenGL implementation which I might try to plug in if I find the time.

[Owen]

You can name your functions gl*. You can name your library libGL.ext

Your pretty much fine as long as you don't call it OpenGL, even if it looks like, smells like and acts like OpenGL.

[bontanu]

Copyright can not be applied to ideas. it can only be applied to an implementation of an idea, or a creation or an expression. Copyright is granted automatically by the simple act of creation in most of the countries. Hence a notice is not even required. Even more some copyright rights can never ever be lost and you can get them back in court pretty easy.

For example you can buy and own a painting of Michelangelo or Van Goth and you can use it to gain money by displaying it ... BUT you can never claim that you have made the painting or obscure the author's signature/notice.

If you ever do so then it is very easy to loose the painting and to pay huge retribution to the author or his family. Yes copyright is inherited and hence there is no end to it.

Patents on the other side can be put on whatever you want to. Any kind of idea no matter how fantastic or not even possible to be done today is usually granted if the claims are logical and respect some rules.

The idea is that the state gets money and if you want to pay big money for an idea in the sky that can not be implemented or enforced them "so be it".

Hence even a mouse click or the idea of a computer of any kind or the general concept of a button or a list box in a GUI CAN be patented. I have seen patent for "any device that controls the computer with thought" ...

The only good thing about patents is that they eventually expire someday while copyright never expires.

With patents you have to go to court to enforce them. And you can imagine what happens when the big time lawyers compete with "Joe the Programmer" with no big time money to spend... you surely loose unless the patent is invalid.

When a conflict appears in between two big corporations they usually exchange patents, plus or minus a certain amount of big money and they go walking.

Hence if you break a patten it does not matter that you name it "gxx" or "xxx" or "yyy". As long as the same concept is used then you are guilty.

Sometimes even the name is an issue if it is close enough to a TM and it is not a very common word but the concept behind your code / apparatus and the "method of functioning" is much more important for a patent then how you name it.

Practically you do not have the right to use an idea unless you pay.

Yes there are countries where software patents do no apply (mainly Europe) but if you have a software and somebody from US downloads it? And anyway the pressure from corporations is that all countries should accept software patents and with enough money this will be the case one day...

Also do not think that you can hide behind "closed source". When a court of law orders you to "show" the sources you must comply ...or otherwise you will spend the rest of your days in jail for contempt until you show the sources...

I have seen people that are very "smart" and "strong" in real life but when confronted with a judge that can destroy you with a signature and he/she looks into your eyes and asks if you are ready for this ... they will do whatever it takes

Basically if you want "success" and "famous" then you have to be ready to pay big amounts of money, to have the right social connections in high class business world and being a programmer is surely NOT the right location for this.

Programmers get "used" by rich, powerful and famous people ... not the other way around. So you would be better of either creating everything yourself from scratch AND avoiding patented algorithms or prepare to pay...

Of course if your target is only hobby and if you do not offend by your work the interest of a big player ... then you might (just maybe) be "spared".

[xDDunce]

http://www.sgi.com/products/software/op ... cense.html

explains everything you need to know.

[uzytkownik]

For example you can buy and own a painting of Michelangelo or Van Goth and you can use it to gain money by displaying it ... BUT you can never claim that you have made the painting or obscure the author's signature/notice.

At least in my country - not exactly. There are 2 kinds of copyright (I'm not sure if they are called the same in English):
- Personal - It means that you can yourself an author. It do not expire. It cannot be traded.
- Wealth (loose translation) - It means that one cannot copy/modify etc. (except special cases) your work. It can and often is traded.