I forwarded that information internaly to my manager about a week ago (after a discution with jcristeau), I believe that the message is: * If it affects only Debian SGI (as a corporation) will not care and treat us as a bunch of nitpickers hippies. (julien sent me a link I can't find now where fedora seemed to state that they had the same concerns) * It is possible that SGI doesn't own the code anymore (and that Khronos does)
On Feb 11, 2008 2:20 PM, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 12:46:30PM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: > >On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 11:38 +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: > >>On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 11:06:19AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: > >>> > >>>A long-standing bug which should be thought about is the GL licensing > >>>problem [1]. SGI kindly contributed code for GL support in X, but their > >>>licence is not DSFG. Upstream is not comfortable with the situation > >>>either and there have been intentions to approach colleagues at SGI to Then we should contact SGI all together... > >>>see about rationalising the licence, to the common X11 licence or > >>>otherwise. However these correspondences proceed at a glacial > >>>corporate rate - not high on corporate SGI's TODO list, you might say. > >>>We've conveniently been ignoring the problem for Debian stable, do we > >>>continue doing so, or are we capable of prodding SGI to accelerate the > >>>discussions? Or do we ditch OpenGL support from Debian... ? Please let's not make these kinds of calls,... -- Niv Sardi