José Fonseca wrote:
Microsoft has been progressively claiming IP ownership of parts of the
OpenGL API. (See http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2118968,00.html)
Although the parts they claim are things like vertex programming -
features that aren't present in older cards such as Mach64
[resending with corrected email address typo]
José Fonseca wrote:
Microsoft has been progressively claiming IP ownership of parts of the
OpenGL API. (See http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2118968,00.html)
Although the parts they claim are things like vertex programming -
features that
On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 02:10:06PM -0500, Stephen J Baker wrote:
| The deal though is that (presuming MS really do own these rights)
| they are talking in terms of LICENSING this IP to allow OpenGL
| to continue to exist. Who would pay them to license it for
| Linux?
There may be ways to
Microsoft has been progressively claiming IP ownership of parts of the
OpenGL API. (See http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2118968,00.html)
Although the parts they claim are things like vertex programming -
features that aren't present in older cards such as Mach64 -, it seems
obvious that
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9?= Fonseca writes:
Microsoft has been progressively claiming IP ownership of parts of the
OpenGL API. (See http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2118968,00.html)
Although the parts they claim are things like vertex programming -
features that aren't present in
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 12:36:53AM +0100, José Fonseca wrote:
| I would like to know your opinion about the influence this may have for
| the DRI and Mesa3D projects in particular, and for the OpenGL API in
| general.
Of course Microsoft would love to see OpenGL disappear, and has been
working
