Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Clutter's Cogl Relicensed To Be More Permissive

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,638

    Default Clutter's Cogl Relicensed To Be More Permissive

    Phoronix: Clutter's Cogl Relicensed To Be More Permissive

    An effort led by Intel Linux developers has resulted in Cogl being made availablw now under the MIT license instead of the LGPL. Cogl is the GNOME/Clutter project that provides a low-level OpenGL abstraction library...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTU3MTY

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    261

    Default

    probably a very silly question but...
    cogl+mesa=mantle-like setting utilised by linux for years?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    127.0.0.1
    Posts
    112

    Angry >__<

    ruined my day

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    625

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Annabel View Post
    ruined my day
    This is Intel... companies have a track record of not liking the (L)GPL.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,937

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: Clutter's Cogl Relicensed To Be More Permissive

    An effort led by Intel Linux developers has resulted in Cogl being made availablw now under the MIT license instead of the LGPL. Cogl is the GNOME/Clutter project that provides a low-level OpenGL abstraction library...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTU3MTY
    Waiting for Honton.

    GNOME is killing copyleft blah blah.

    He'll be here any moment now.... or not?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jakubo View Post
    probably a very silly question but...
    cogl+mesa=mantle-like setting utilised by linux for years?
    cogl sits on top of OpenGL, while Mantle was supposed to replace OpenGL.
    cogl is the painkiller (a shitty one), Mantle is/was supposed to be the cure (a good one).

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    792

    Default

    Because if you don't use copyleft, evil companies will steal your code and all will be lost!
    Oh wait, companies publish and contribute to permissive code...

    Sarcasm aside, it's a good news. Permissive code contributed by corporations is the sign that open source is valid as a business model, and not just because people believe in it or that it is protected by (non universal and hard to enforce) copyright laws.
    And being economically attractive is generally stronger than just being legal.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    210

    Default

    I'm typically happy with lgpl + static link clause. Dynamic linking in some cases is a huge inconvenience for packaging.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    368

    Default

    I don't get the hate of GPL fans. If people understand the benefits of open source, we don't need a complex and (legally) messy license like GPL. More and more people and companies are embracing open source, so we're slowly getting to that point.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jakubo View Post
    probably a very silly question but...
    cogl+mesa=mantle-like setting utilised by linux for years?
    No, quite the opposite. Cogl provides some additional abstraction on top of OpenGL or OpenGL ES.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •