Angus Dorbie (dorbie++at++sgi.com)
Fri, 24 Apr 1998 10:32:49 -0700
This in no way indicates SGI official policy but I don't see how you can
say
this. Just because a document is presented to a comittee for review,
doesn't
convey all the rights to it's contents, particularly the ownership of
any IP
described in it, but I'm no lawyer and don't know all that was said or
exchanged w.r.t. the spec.
>
> I have a copy of the spec - but it's under NDA from SGI - so I can't use that
> as the basis of a 'Mesa++' effort. Following Kurt's announcement, there should
> be no problem getting hold of the current spec without NDA - I presume.
There's a big difference between running with an OpenGL scene graph idea
and
using the NDA spec lock, stock and barrel. None of this is is SGI
policy, but even
if the OpenGL++ spec were left to the ARB, it may very well be the case
that
nobody on the ARB is interested in OpenGL++ anymore. As I have already
pointed
out most ARB members now have a significant stake in Fahrenheit or their
own
Scene Graph strategies like Java 3D, and Raytheon isn't on the ARB :-(.
Why would you want or need to base Mesa++ on OpenGL++ if the rest of the
world
is using FSG and there is no _real OpenGL++.
I want to make it absolutely clear that these are just a personal
observations
of the issues raised by Steve and don't reflect SGIs views in any way.
Cheers,Angus.
-- "Only the mediocre are always at their best." -- Jean GiraudouxFor advanced 3D graphics Performer + OpenGL based examples and tutors: http://www.dorbie.com/ ======================================================================= List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://www.sgi.com/Technology/Performer/ Submissions: info-performer++at++sgi.com Admin. requests: info-performer-request++at++sgi.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:57:18 PDT