Re: [Mesa-dev] Re: [utah-glx-dev] Sample implementation of OpenGL released underOpenSource License
Keith Whitwell wrote: > Here's one - it's not immediately obvious if it is relevent, but it's not in > our license now. > > > 3. No License For Hardware Implementations. The licenses granted in > >Section 2.1 are not applicable to implementation in Hardware of the > >algorithms embodied in the Original Code. The XFree-style license which Mesa is currently under doesn't have the restriction to which this exemption applies, if you see what I mean. So it's not relevant. --Adam ___ Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Re: [utah-glx-dev] Sample implementation of OpenGL released underOpenSource License
Keith Whitwell wrote: > > Sven Heyll wrote: > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Hetz Ben Hamo wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Well, as the title says - SGI has just released a sample implementation of > > > OpenGL to the Open Source Community. > > > > > > URL: > > > >http://www.quicken.com/investments/news/story/pr/?story=/news/stories/pr/2126/sfw052.htm&symbol=SGI > > > > > > Now the biggie question - are we going to modify soon the Matrox and other > > > drivers to the OpenGL? will we leave Mesa out?? (Sorry if it's a stupid > > > question). > > I have this question too. > > > > I dont know if it is a stupid question, but I think that the Mesa > > programmers should compare their implementaion with that from SGI, and > > then take all that is better than Mesa. I dont think that the SGI > > implementation has assembler optimations, and after all, it is just a > > sample maybe it is not that good at all ?( I rather think it is very good) > > > > The stuff that might be interresting in my opinion are several SGI > > extensions and texture stuff. > > > > I think it is first necessary to evaluate the license that they have proposed > and ensure that use of their code doesn't > 'taint' the Mesa codebase. If we take their code, we get the license > restrictions for free, and would need to add them to the Mesa license. > > Here's one - it's not immediately obvious if it is relevent, but it's not in > our license now. > > > 3. No License For Hardware Implementations. The licenses granted in > >Section 2.1 are not applicable to implementation in Hardware of the > >algorithms embodied in the Original Code. > > Here's another one, which is reminiscent of the Java licenses: > > 4.Modifications License and API Compliance. Modifications are only licensed > under Section 2.1(i) to the extent such Modifications are fully compliant with > any API as may be identified in Additional Notice Provisions as appear in the > Original Code. > > The license appears 'viral' in that incorporating SI code into Mesa would > impose these constraints on Mesa. > Please note that I'm not condemning what SGI's done - it's long overdue in my opinion. However there is a dense bit of legalese attached to it which I don't fully understand the implications of, and would be happy to see clarified. Keith ___ Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
[Mesa-dev] Re: [utah-glx-dev] Sample implementation of OpenGL released underOpenSource License
Sven Heyll wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Hetz Ben Hamo wrote: > > Hello, > > > Hi, > > > > Well, as the title says - SGI has just released a sample implementation of > > OpenGL to the Open Source Community. > > > > URL: > > >http://www.quicken.com/investments/news/story/pr/?story=/news/stories/pr/2126/sfw052.htm&symbol=SGI > > > > Now the biggie question - are we going to modify soon the Matrox and other > > drivers to the OpenGL? will we leave Mesa out?? (Sorry if it's a stupid > > question). > I have this question too. > > I dont know if it is a stupid question, but I think that the Mesa > programmers should compare their implementaion with that from SGI, and > then take all that is better than Mesa. I dont think that the SGI > implementation has assembler optimations, and after all, it is just a > sample maybe it is not that good at all ?( I rather think it is very good) > > The stuff that might be interresting in my opinion are several SGI > extensions and texture stuff. > I think it is first necessary to evaluate the license that they have proposed and ensure that use of their code doesn't 'taint' the Mesa codebase. If we take their code, we get the license restrictions for free, and would need to add them to the Mesa license. Here's one - it's not immediately obvious if it is relevent, but it's not in our license now. > 3. No License For Hardware Implementations. The licenses granted in >Section 2.1 are not applicable to implementation in Hardware of the >algorithms embodied in the Original Code. Here's another one, which is reminiscent of the Java licenses: 4.Modifications License and API Compliance. Modifications are only licensed under Section 2.1(i) to the extent such Modifications are fully compliant with any API as may be identified in Additional Notice Provisions as appear in the Original Code. The license appears 'viral' in that incorporating SI code into Mesa would impose these constraints on Mesa. Keith ___ Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
