On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 02:51:06PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 01/11/2010 01:32 PM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 01:36:47AM -0500, Arc Riley wrote: > >>There is no license issue. GLEW is under the BSD, at worse you include the > >>BSD boilerplate in the header and copy/modify their headers. It's fully > >>compatible with both v2 and v3 of the LGPL. > > > >We cannot combine code that has a similar license to the BSD license > >(non-copyleft), with LGPL licensed (copyleft) code. > > Most BSD licenses are compatible with the [L]GPL, i.e. such kind of > code could be relicensed using the [L]GPL as an "umbrella license". > > Whether we could do so would require careful examination of these > BSD licensed pieces of code, because some BSD licenses are > considered non-free (Cf. > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses).
I'm not a lawyer. This is my interpretation of the license as it applies to the generated wrappers that we distribute under the LGPL. The generated wrappers are not a verbatim copy of the published ext headers, but a derived work. I am not sure if we can simply take something under a BSD-like license and re-distribute it under LGPL. OTOH, the Khronos headers don't have any advertising clause, but the license terms have changed in the past and I don't know if the current license is guaranteed to stay. There are also some non-Khronos extensions and patches to the Khronos headers, which are not clearly licensed. > >>More importantly, GLEW and gtkglext overlap in more ways than glext.h. > >>There's enough dependency bloat in the Gnome community, not to mention > >>redundant functionality taking up valuable memory and causing cache misses > >>that hurt performance. GLEW is barely enough to constitute a full library > >>in any event. That's one less dependency to worry about. > > > >gtkglext is a simple way to get an OpenGL context for a GTK+ widget. It > >is not an OpenGL convenience library. It is not intended to: > > > > o Provide a scenegraph > > o Do input handling, window management, etc. > > o Draw geometric shapes > > o Provide convenience wrappers for GL/GLX/etc. > > Agreed. I am also not excited about this proposal. Yes regardless of the licensing issues, we don't want this in gtkglext. There are many people[1] who are prefectly happy with GLEW and GLee. If there are issues, these can be fixed and patches can be sent to their maintainers. 1. http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=424183 Mukund _______________________________________________ gtkglext-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkglext-list
