Just so. Unless otherwise specified, cat_fish's code would be
considered a work for hire, and copyright would belong to the employer.
:-) Thank you all for your concern in this matter, but it is clearly
covered in my proposal that the work will remain open source and be
re-submitted to XFree
Cheshire Cat Fish wrote:
Mesa support/conformance is a requirement. The resulting SMI drivers
would remain open source, and part of the Xfree/DRI/Linux distribution.
That is the plan at least.
That's good news. :)
There are way too many variables to be able to accurately answer that
question
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 09:49:53 -0700, Cheshire Cat Fish wrote:
Licensing issues are not a problem. SMI has approached me asking for this
to be done, so I will have full access to all their source code to use to
complete this task.
I would caution that your conclusion (licensing is not a
TR I would caution that your conclusion (licensing is not a
problem) does not
necessarily follow from your premise (SMI asked for it).
Just so. Unless otherwise specified, cat_fish's code would be
considered a work for hire, and copyright would belong to the employer.
=
--
Craig
I am investigating supporting DRI and OpenGL for the Silicon Motion driver.
I'm new to both of those, so some of these may be newbie sounding questions.
1) I have the OpenGL code from the Windows 2000 Silicon Motion driver. Can
this code be mostly used as is? Or will the Linux code be entirely
Cheshire Cat Fish wrote:
I am investigating supporting DRI and OpenGL for the Silicon Motion driver.
I'm new to both of those, so some of these may be newbie sounding
questions.
1) I have the OpenGL code from the Windows 2000 Silicon Motion driver.
Can this code be mostly used as is? Or
