---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:39:14 -0600 (CST) From: Stephen J Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Mesa-dev] SGI Opensources OpenGL! On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, C.J. Beyer wrote: > Well, from reading the licence FAQ... Which is here BTW: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/ogl-sample/faq.html > ... it might answer Gareth Hughes question about that extension: > > "Some ways we can work together might include implementations of new > ARB-specified OpenGL extensions..." Yep. Although I think they are talking more in terms of sharing the code for those extensions rather than the specification of the extension which (I guess) is what Gareth is talking about. > However, I'd really like to here responces to this comment: > > "Based on discussions with some of the active Mesa developers, > there's a reasonable chance of merging the two together > into a single reference implementation and driver kit over time." Someone at SGI once told me that there had been discussions about dumping SGI's reference implementation in favor of Mesa - but that was a LONG time ago - before OpenGL 1.2 and the optional imaging subset stuff (which Mesa doesnt implement - but the reference implementation must). It would be kinda ironic if the one implementation of the OpenGL API that isn't allowed to be called OpenGL would end up being the reference implementation! I have a couple of comments (now I've read the FAQ): 1) They mention that this release does not include the dynamic code generation rasterizer that's in SGI's OpenGL for Windoze. That's a shame because that could have benefitted software-only rendering under Mesa. 2) It *does* include the optional imaging subset of OpenGL 1.2 - which would be a nice addition to Mesa. 3) To quote the FAQ: "Do I still need a license for OpenGL? Yes"...<snip> So, if I read this right (and IANAL), if you take this code and do something to it, you *still* can't call it OpenGL. That's actually pretty reasonable because you'd still need to pass the conformance test suite and that's *still* not OpenSourced. Later on they say: "...we allow you to use the following exact attribution (no more, no less) in your software products that are based on this Sample Implementation: This software was created using the published OpenGLŪ version 1.2.1 Sample Implementation, but has not been independently verified as being compliant with the OpenGLŪ1 version 1.2.1, GLU version 1.3, or GLX version 1.3 Specifications." ...well, at least it's made crystal clear what you have to do to stay legal. The big favor I'd like to ask of SGI is whether they'd release the compliance suite for public use (not necessarily as "Open" or as "Source" - there might be good reasons not to do that). Whilst that wouldn't change the use of the OpenGL *name*, it would allow Joe Public to test SquonkGL ("...created using the published OpenGL..") to see if it is still "an implementation of the OpenGL API". Given the potential for this newly freed code to create multiple Mesa-like "implementations of the OpenGL API" (we need a non-copyrighted name for those things), it would be nice to have a reasonably official way to test them for yourself against the gold standard. I appreciate that there is already a partial freeware "test" suite (GLEAN), it's still FAR from being a comprehensive test harness. Steve Baker (817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail) Raytheon Systems Inc. (817)619-2466 (Fax) Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hti.com Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1 _______________________________________________ Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
