Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Dec 2005 13:03 UTC, submitted by zam001
X11, Window Managers Aaron Siego of KDE: "It would be very nice if our X server could use OpenGL directly for its display and composition. Because then we could have hardware accelerated effects that are not only cool looking, but also very useful. Well, there is just such a project underway, called XGL. But don't hold your breath. The development of XGL has been largely removed from the community and is being done behind closed doors. Who is this company, you ask, that would take the development of something as potentially important as this out of the community and put it behind closed doors? Novell."
Thread beginning with comment 76126
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: responses
by on Tue 20th Dec 2005 18:01 UTC in reply to "RE: responses"

Member since:

"People are always told that's one of the great things about open source : anyone can take the code and start hacking, now suddenly that's a bad thing ?"

Jesus, learn to read.

The bad thing is that the code is _not_ publicly available, so nobody from the outside can take, nobody from the outside can test it and give feedback or adjust other software to work well with XGL, nobody from the outside can contribute, so some would like to.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: responses
by Tyr. on Tue 20th Dec 2005 18:11 in reply to "RE[2]: responses"
Tyr. Member since:
2005-07-06

The bad thing is that the code is _not_ publicly available, so nobody from the outside can take, nobody from the outside can test it and give feedback or adjust other software to work well with XGL, nobody from the outside can contribute, so some would like to.

Read what I said : anyone can take the code, maybe there are 100 other devs out there hacking on their own forks in private. The code is there they can take it, this is supposed to be good.
But no, someone might be actually doing some work of value and the first response is not "cool, someone took our code and it helped them" (which would be more in tune with the purported values of the open source community), but "Gimme, gimme gimmeeee !" instead.

Here's a clue : there are actually licenses that require changes to be sent back to the original author, it's licenses like these that open source zealots like to denounce companies like Apple and Sun over.
I just whish they would make up their minds already, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: responses
by cr8dle2grave on Tue 20th Dec 2005 18:57 in reply to "RE[3]: responses"
cr8dle2grave Member since:
2005-07-11

_there are actually licenses that require changes to be sent back to the original author, it's licenses like these that open source zealots like to denounce companies like Apple and Sun over._

Licenses really have nothing to do with this situation. The GPL's requirements only kick in when the software is distributed and Novell's XGL work hasn't been distributed at all (which is the source of Aaron's complaint).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: responses
by null_pointer_us on Tue 20th Dec 2005 18:27 in reply to "RE[2]: responses"
null_pointer_us Member since:
2005-08-19

The bad thing is that the code is _not_ publicly available, so nobody from the outside can take, nobody from the outside can test it and give feedback or adjust other software to work well with XGL, nobody from the outside can contribute, so some would like to.

I believe he was talking about the code that's still in the public repository, not the code from the Novell fork. His point is that Novell was only able to fork the code because it was under an "open source" license in the first place. And no, I didn't understand him the first two times I read it, either. ;-)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: responses
by Tyr. on Tue 20th Dec 2005 18:35 in reply to "RE[3]: responses"
Tyr. Member since:
2005-07-06

I believe he was talking about the code that's still in the public repository, not the code from the Novell fork. His point is that Novell was only able to fork the code because it was under an "open source" license in the first place. And no, I didn't understand him the first two times I read it, either. ;-)

Thank you that's exactly what I meant. I blame English not being my mother tongue rather than just sloppy writing *coughs*.

Reply Parent Score: 1