On 2002.01.21 00:41 Philip Brown wrote: > On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 07:17:40AM -0800, Gareth Hughes wrote: > > Philip Brown wrote: > > > > > > but I would say that microsoft DOES want to kill OpenGL, > >... > > Allen's original statement made the point that MS considers OpenGL > > to be dead and buried, period. They've fought that battle, and in > > their mind, won. If this is the case, suggesting MS is out buying > > patents to kill off the DRI seems a bit silly... > > This is just standard M$ proceedure: > Riddicule the opposition as irrelevant, while simultaneously trying to > destroy/absorb/assimilate them. > > > remember "who needs multitasking?" >
I also have the opinion that Microsoft will do what will whatever it can to mine OpenGL in favor of DirectX - it was their policy since the begining.. But putting opinions aside, assuming that they have bought from SGI the intellectual property related with OpenGL, how far can they go? OpenGL is a standard. Only the sample implementation, the use of the OpenGL logo and claim of conformance are subject to license. There is already a free OpenGL "compatible" implementation (Mesa). So even if Microsoft holds on to these licenses it could never prevent that developers and vendors use Opengl "alike" solutions, i.e., that don't claim OpenGL conformance officialy. Or am I wrong is this thinking? Of course this scenario is hypotetical because because high-end graphical software uses OpenGL, especially because of its cross platform range, and I don't see DirectX running outside of Windows: it's strongly based on COM and Microsoft always marketed it mainly as agame API. Anyway, this stuff was left in the worst hands that they could be... Jose Fonseca _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
