On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 15:11:33 -0800, finalpatch <fen...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 at 18:49:58 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
I think if you're willing to use version 2.4 then you get a much more
permissive license, no? That's how I read
http://www.antigrain.com/license/index.html anyway...
Right, it will just force us to become responsible for maintaining our
own fork of AGG. I'm not sure we should get into that business.
The development of AGG has pretty much stopped after the original author
released 2.4. The 2.5 is no more than just a license change (I remember
I have compared the files).
The fork on SourceForge, although considered maintained, it contains
only a few small changes. Right now the revision number of that repo is
only about 90, and there isn't much happening in the repo over the
years. I think if we pick up the 2.4 version, convert it to idiomatic D,
it would be very good showcase of D's template capability.
The thing I like about AGG is that it is very portable (I have ported it
to embedded micro controllers in a matter of minutes). That is because
all it requires is just a pixel buffer and a C++ compiler. It is also
very fast for a high quality software renderer, so if extreme
performance is not high on your priority list, AGG is a very good fit
for you needs. And also because it's a pure software renderer that works
on pixel buffers, it's a good candidate to be included in Phobos.
Even with a full port of 2.4 to D it would still fall under the BSD
3-Clause license which is not Boost compliant IIRC. So it will never end
up in Phobos. If I am missing something let me know, because a Phobos
Software Renderer is a good idea.
--
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Aurora Project Coordinator
