On Tuesday 11 July 2006 13:16, Peter TB Brett wrote: > > In fact, I don't think anyone here is *enormously* fussed about how > ideologically 'free' the RTL is. I think that the thing that > everyone is most excited about is that this will be a graphics chip > with full specifications published, so that anyone can use it and > interface with it in the way that they want to. > > Having 'open' RTL is a enormously cool and awesome bonus, but it's > just that. To be entirely honest, if nVidia and ATi were to turn > around tomorrow and say, "From now on all of our interface specs will > be freely released to anyone who wants them, here they are," > Traversal and the OGP would be out of business. > > Now, going out on a limb and at risk of being called a troll: from > *my* point of view, Traversal is welcome to require very expensive > licenses/very constrictive NDA's in order to use/view the RTL code, > *provided* *that* they make a covenant with the community to always > release*full* interface & behavioural data & specifications for the > hardware[1].
I agree. I think it should mainly be a business decision by Traversal. How much revenue does TT miss when opening up the RTL versus how much does TT gain from having outside developers helping out. That's hard to say, and it will probably change over time as well. Lourens
pgpKSIehyAx2w.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
