[...]
> Usually when I say that people tell me that opengl is also controled by
> companies, the simple diffrance I see is the fact that opengl does have
> something to do with hardware and like it or not we need hardware
> companies support, but AFAICS this is not the case with openML.
It is. Ope
Hey,
It's a good question, my impression was that they are not aiming to the
opensource market and only using it as a starting point.
They had discussion if you release the SDK in free source or not and
although they decided that they would still no one say they still would
next time.
Usually when
Jon Smirl wrote:
I'm looking at the OpenML spec and it covers the areas that we have been
discussing plus a lot more. But the Khronos Group doesn't appear to be very Open
Source friendly. It seems that I have to apply for membership and return signed
documents to get a Linux SDK. But some of thei
Jon Smirl wrote:
I'm looking at the OpenML spec and it covers the areas that we have been
discussing plus a lot more. But the Khronos Group doesn't appear to be very Open
Source friendly. It seems that I have to apply for membership and return signed
documents to get a Linux SDK. But some of thei
I'm looking at the OpenML spec and it covers the areas that we have been
discussing plus a lot more. But the Khronos Group doesn't appear to be very Open
Source friendly. It seems that I have to apply for membership and return signed
documents to get a Linux SDK. But some of their other projects
As I've said, I don't have a deep grasp of the requirements of a putative
future mode-setting API, but in the course of other reading I came across
MLdc, which is a part of the OpenML environment. This is a library API which
seems to give comprehensive control of mode-setting to an application,
