[arch-dev-public] Adding {lib32-}libtxc_dxtn_s2tc in community/multilib
"S2TC is a patent-free S3TC compatible implementation and provides texture compression to Mesa. The package also includes tools to compress/decompress S2TC textures and convert S3TC textures to S2TC ones using the patent-free algorithm." Plan is to add these packages in community/multilib. These packages are patent free S3TC implementation instead of libtxc_dxtn. These are already part of Ubuntu and Debian. There was a bug with etqw/quake4 that i've just fixed, so currently it's pretty bug-free. These packages are not filling requirement, but are essential for games, as these usually need S3TC support. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/libtxc_dxtn_s2tc https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lib32-libtxc_dxtn_s2tc S2TC on github: https://github.com/divVerent/s2tc Regards, Laurent Carlier
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Laurent Carlier <lordheavym@gmail.com> wrote:
"S2TC is a patent-free S3TC compatible implementation and provides texture compression to Mesa. The package also includes tools to compress/decompress S2TC textures and convert S3TC textures to S2TC ones using the patent-free algorithm."
Plan is to add these packages in community/multilib. These packages are patent free S3TC implementation instead of libtxc_dxtn. These are already part of Ubuntu and Debian.
There was a bug with etqw/quake4 that i've just fixed, so currently it's pretty bug-free.
These packages are not filling requirement, but are essential for games, as these usually need S3TC support.
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/libtxc_dxtn_s2tc https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lib32-libtxc_dxtn_s2tc
S2TC on github: https://github.com/divVerent/s2tc
Regards, Laurent Carlier
Do we really care about patents enough? Can't we just include the standard libtxc_dxtn? Even if we care - I heard that S2TC may be encumbered as well.
On 17.12.2012 01:53, Jan Steffens wrote:
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Laurent Carlier <lordheavym@gmail.com> wrote:
"S2TC is a patent-free S3TC compatible implementation and provides texture compression to Mesa. The package also includes tools to compress/decompress S2TC textures and convert S3TC textures to S2TC ones using the patent-free algorithm."
Plan is to add these packages in community/multilib. These packages are patent free S3TC implementation instead of libtxc_dxtn. These are already part of Ubuntu and Debian.
There was a bug with etqw/quake4 that i've just fixed, so currently it's pretty bug-free.
These packages are not filling requirement, but are essential for games, as these usually need S3TC support.
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/libtxc_dxtn_s2tc https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lib32-libtxc_dxtn_s2tc
S2TC on github: https://github.com/divVerent/s2tc
Regards, Laurent Carlier Do we really care about patents enough? Can't we just include the standard libtxc_dxtn? Even if we care - I heard that S2TC may be encumbered as well.
Personally, I don't think we care about patents enough and should slap both libs in there. I think plenty of stuff we have in binary in our repos is encumbered by patents but s3tc just happens to get a lot of bad press on that particular part. It probably doesn't make it any more "dangerous" to have than the other stuff we already package. Can we get some more opinions on this particular point?
[2012-12-17 09:38:15 +0100] Sven-Hendrik Haase:
Personally, I don't think we care about patents enough
Unfortunately, many of our distribution's users, mirrors, and servers are located in jurisdictions that take software patents seriously. I do not think it is wise to put us at risk there, especially when these risks can be avoided easily like seems to be the case with S3TC.
I think plenty of stuff we have in binary in our repos is encumbered by patents
Like what? You appear to be confusing patent issues with licensing issues, the latter being what commonly concerns binary blobs (and in particular, being granted the right to redistribute them). Besides, if such a blob had a patent problem, I do not believe we would be at fault as we have no means of knowing how the blob operates (at least in jurisdictions such as the US which celebrate ignorance). Now, I am not a lawyer... -- Gaetan
[2012-12-17 20:09:21 +1100] Gaetan Bisson:
[2012-12-17 09:38:15 +0100] Sven-Hendrik Haase:
I think plenty of stuff we have in binary in our repos is encumbered by patents
You appear to be confusing patent issues with licensing issues, the latter being what commonly concerns binary blobs (and in particular, being granted the right to redistribute them).
Also, note that we *do* pay attention to redistribution rights as well: we ask the express permission of the copyright owners for redistributing every piece of software for which the licensing terms do not clearly grant that right. -- Gaetan
Le lundi 17 décembre 2012 01:53:34 Jan Steffens a écrit :
Do we really care about patents enough? Can't we just include the standard libtxc_dxtn? Even if we care - I heard that S2TC may be encumbered as well.
S3TC is encumbered with patent, it's a fact. There is more incertainty about S2TC, just wait for a notice from lawyers. If you push libtxc_dxt in repos, i won't have to push s2tc one. ++
Am 17.12.2012 01:53, schrieb Jan Steffens:
Do we really care about patents enough? Can't we just include the standard libtxc_dxtn? Even if we care - I heard that S2TC may be encumbered as well.
The only thing we can care about is the license. If it's free software or we have permission to distribute it, I don't see any problem here. If we would accept software patents as valid we would not be able to ship any package. Greetings, Pierre -- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
Le lundi 17 décembre 2012 11:21:50 Pierre Schmitz a écrit :
Am 17.12.2012 01:53, schrieb Jan Steffens:
Do we really care about patents enough? Can't we just include the standard libtxc_dxtn? Even if we care - I heard that S2TC may be encumbered as well.
The only thing we can care about is the license. If it's free software or we have permission to distribute it, I don't see any problem here. If we would accept software patents as valid we would not be able to ship any package.
Greetings,
Pierre
If software patents is not a real issue, i propose to: - Add libtxc_dxtn to [extra] - Add libtxc_dxtn as optdepend of {ati,nouveau,intel}-dri packages Regards, Laurent carlier
Le lundi 17 décembre 2012 12:14:55 vous avez écrit :
If software patents is not a real issue, i propose to: - Add libtxc_dxtn to [extra] - Add libtxc_dxtn as optdepend of {ati,nouveau,intel}-dri packages
Better as optdepend of mesa package, because swrast driver can use it too
Regards,
Laurent carlier
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Laurent Carlier <lordheavym@gmail.com> wrote:
Better as optdepend of mesa package, because swrast driver can use it too
libgl then, not mesa.
[2012-12-17 11:21:50 +0100] Pierre Schmitz:
The only thing we can care about is the license. If it's free software or we have permission to distribute it, I don't see any problem here.
Sure; why bother abiding by the law? You may live in Germany but what you do on overseas servers such as gerolde still falls under US law.
If we would accept software patents as valid we would not be able to ship any package.
Not all patents are equal: many are obvious trolls (easy to invalidate, e.g. because of existing prior art); some however are serious. How do we spot these? Well, by doing the least we can do: listening to upstream... If a specific piece of software is subject to sufficient patent doubt for upstream developers to bother coming up with a less encumbered version, it seems plain unreasonable not to go for the latter... -- Gaetan
participants (5)
-
Gaetan Bisson
-
Jan Steffens
-
Laurent Carlier
-
Pierre Schmitz
-
Sven-Hendrik Haase