>I don't like this clause in the FAQ though:
>
> Ownership of the original code will remain in SGI. Contributors of
> modifications to the original code will own their own modifications
> (independent of the original code); however, SGI will ask for
> assignment back to SGI of any contributors' modifications offered to
> SGI as gatekeeper of the "official" Original Code of the SI. This is
> to ensure that the OpenGL SI can continue to play the role of "the gold
> standard", freely shared with the development community.
>
>I don't like the idea of giving Mesa away for SGI to act as gatekeeper.
>
>I think we have to think more in terms of pulling stuff out of SI and
>into Mesa - if the license can be straightened out in *that* direction.
I can agree with your concern, but my worry is such a fork in development
efforts. It would be like KDE and Gnome ... why spread out development efforts
and end up with two lesser systems when one excellent one could be developed?
In part, I'm thinking about the benefit that could come to OpenGL in general.
Open source development of OpenGL could be used by any vendor, so work done by
the Mesa team on OpenGL would benefit more than just Linux users. I dunno, my
two cents.
Jonathan Dinerstein
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
