Re: Performer at ITEC
Angus Dorbie (dorbie++at++sgi.com)
Tue, 05 May 1998 10:11:04 -0700
Rick Weyrauch wrote:
>
> Angus Dorbie wrote:
> >
> > Steve Baker wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Rick Weyrauch wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am also interested in developing an open 'freeware' scene graph
> > > > toolkit for OpenGL. The graphics community (both on Linux and Win32)
> > > > could use such a tool.
> > > >
> > > > With the advent of Fahrenheit, it there a problem with SGI releasing the
> > > > OpenGL++ spec to the public?
> > >
> > > Kurt Akeley said:
> > >
> > > "SGI will no longer be able to push OpenGL++ (though they have no objection to
> > > others picking up the work)."
> > >
> > > Also, the OpenGL++ spec presumably belongs to the OpenGL ARB and not to SGI,
> > > so I presume we'd have to talk to the ARB to get a copy of it.
> >
> > 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++.
>
> The only reason for using the OpenGL++ spec is that is (was) a spec that
> a number of net-developer could write code to. Without a solid spec,
> developing a useful scene graph library would be chaotic.
>
> If SGI does not allow us to use the OpenGL++ spec, then we'll have to
> come up with our own in order to develop a 'Mesa++'.
I think the point I was making is that this is already inevitable if you
proceed.
Cheers,Angus.
--
"Only the mediocre are always at their best." -- Jean Giraudoux
For 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 - 17:57:22 PDT