anyway we could see the original reply? including the disparaging
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen J Baker [SMTP:sjbaker@...]
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 9:20 AM
> To: Dave McClurg
> Cc: freeglut-developer@...
> Subject: Re: [Freeglut-developer] GLUT-classic licensing
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Dave McClurg wrote:
> > Did someone contact Mark Kilgard and receive a reply that said
> forking is
> > not allowed? If modified sources are not allowed to be distributed
> then how
> > did the Apple and BeOS ports get out ? I'd just like to understand
> > better.
> I found the additional information.
> What happened was that Jon Leech wrote a strong email to Mark Kilgard
> demanding that he either clarify the license conditions for GLUT or
> hand the package over to someone else.
> Here is the relevent snippet. It's interesting to note that this
> arrived on Jan 3rd 2000 - just two days after 'freeglut' became usable
> all previous attempts over the past three years to get Mark to
> on his license terms had been met with no reply:
> Jon Leech wrote:
> > One word would suffice: can people modify and redistribute the
> > source code under its current copyright? Yes or no?
> Mark Kilgard wrote:
> > The answer is YES. Just call it something other than GLUT if you
> > plan to rerelease it. Preserve the copyright notice. Don't slap a
> > on it and your in business. You can introduce all the bugs, VRML
> > support, audio, whatever. Just please don't make it sound like I
> > it or that it is GLUT.
> (He said a few other disparaging things about OpenSource and GPL...but
> that was the relevent section of the email)
> About a week later, Mark announced that he has been working on a new
> release of GLUT with many (unspecified) new features and enhancements.
> That was in mid-January 2000...there is no sign of it - and nobody
> that I know (including some people who work with Mark) has ever seen
> this improved version.
> I think he was pretty upset that his bluff had been called and that
> freeglut had been written - thereby taking his stranglehold off the
> API...that would explain a 3 year silence followed by all this
> activity within just a few days of freeglut's appearance - I don't
> think that's a coincidence.
> I havn't seen a single post from Mark on the GLUT-classic mailing
> list for years (not that it's a busy list in any case) - but I
> guess I answer all of the questions there are there.
> Anyway, what does Mark's 'license addendum' mean?
> * You have to preserve the copyright notice.
> The only such notice that I can find is the thing that
> says it's not in the public domain.
> * You may not GPL it...well OK - but can we release it under any
> other license? No - because we have to retain the original
> copyright notice.
> * You can't call it GLUT or even make it *sound* like it's GLUT.
> That presumably forces you to *not* say things like "This is
> a GLUT clone" or "This is compatible with the GLUT API".
> In fact, since the copyright notice says that this is GLUT,
> and that everything was developed by Mark, it's actually impossible
> to both preserve that notice and *NOT* sound like this is GLUT and
> that Mark endorses it.
> All subsequent attempts to get Mark to clarify his position on
> these ambiguities have failed.
> So - given that Mark is clearly unhappy about people messing with
> his baby, and the still 'iffy' standing of his license terms - would
> *YOU* take a chance and 'fork' the source code?
> Well - if we were faced with rewriting GLUT from scratch right now,
> I'd be thinking that *maybe* I could live with Mark's terms and
> conditions rather than doing all that work.
> However, we already have:
> freeglut : About 90% of the GLUT API, implemented and working
> nicely - with the missing 10% being *mostly* stuff
> people never use anyway.
> fxglut : Another fairly complete implementation - but (IIRC)
> only single-window because it was intended to work
> with 3Dfx Voodoo-1 and -2 cards without X windows
> or wnatever. As we heard yesterday, this contains
> vector font routines such as are missing from freeglut.
> FLTK's glut emulation: I have no idea how complete this is - but
> it's also OpenSourced - so we can steal bits from it
> if we need to.
> ...and given that it's just a small step from there to an utterly
> free (beer *and* liberty) package that we can call whatever we like
> and do whatever we like with, I just don't feel like messing around
> with a fork of the GLUT-classic package.
> It makes much more sense to use freeglut - which is actually a
> pretty damned good GLUT replacement. Apart from the lack of stroke
> fonts, there isn't one single GLUT program that I have that doesn't
> compile and run just fine with freeglut.
> Mark has handled this in the worst possible way IMHO.
> Steve Baker (817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail)
> L3Com/Link Simulation & Training (817)619-2466 (Fax)
> Work: sjbaker@... http://www.link.com
> Home: sjbaker1@... http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
> Freeglut-developer mailing list