On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 12:46:30PM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: >On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 11:38 +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: >>On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 11:06:19AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: >>> >>>A long-standing bug which should be thought about is the GL licensing >>>problem [1]. SGI kindly contributed code for GL support in X, but their >>>licence is not DSFG. Upstream is not comfortable with the situation >>>either and there have been intentions to approach colleagues at SGI to >>>see about rationalising the licence, to the common X11 licence or >>>otherwise. However these correspondences proceed at a glacial >>>corporate rate - not high on corporate SGI's TODO list, you might say. >>>We've conveniently been ignoring the problem for Debian stable, do we >>>continue doing so, or are we capable of prodding SGI to accelerate the >>>discussions? Or do we ditch OpenGL support from Debian... ? >> >>I'm currently working for SGI (together with Russell Coker, in the >>same project).
Russell doesn't work for SGI any more. But Niv is. I've cc-ed Jim and Niv. >>>Drew >>> >>>[1] bugs #368560, #368559, #211765 (I think this one is redundant, the >>>original bug mitosed into the others) and #368564 >> >>Aníbal Monsalve Salazar > >That sounds promising! It would be an Honourable Task if you and >Russell could find who's responsible for the GL licences and get the >inconsistency wiped. There are fears SGI is no longer in control of the >code [1]. On the X.org side it was Jim Gettys who was going to try to >work on the licence problems [2]. No doubt worth liasing with him if >you're able to proceed with this task. Jim, what could Niv and I do from inside SGI? >Drew > > >[1] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2006-December/020397.html >http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2006-December/020422.html > >[2] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2006-October/018648.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
