On 7/23/06, Viktor Pracht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am Samstag, den 22.07.2006, 09:09 -0400 schrieb Timothy Miller:
> Someone suggested that it might be inappropriate for OHF to have the
> membership and Traversal to use it. I'm not sure, though.
IMHO, OHF is the best entity to get a Vendor ID. But instead of
assigning Device IDs to real devices, it should assign Device IDs to
various open specifications. The first such "Device" would be the FPGA
programming interface, the second one would probably be the OGC register
interface. Any real device which implements the same interface (either
by licensing it from TT or by implementing the eventually GPLed HDL
code) can use the same Vendor ID and Device ID.
On the one hand, I like your idea. On the other hand, the OHF does
have to find reasonable ways to protect Traversal. The OHF should
show a huge bias towards Traversal, because Traversal isn't REALLY a
separate company. Traversal is just a corporate identity that three
community members have created for doing business. In other words,
the OHF should be biased towards me, Andy, and Howard.
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
