On 04.02.2012 00:35, Humdinger wrote:
Hi! On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 13:21:41 -0500 John Scipione wrote:I prefer the banner image, without it the preference pane looks a little too plain. And there is nothing wrong with a bit of inconsistency to add some flair.I don't agree. Consistency should be (and is) one of our major goals. I think the user doesn't want to be entertained by the GUI, certainly not by a preference panel. :) In that regard: +1 for the new look. But what about Eddy's quote from SGI's OpenGL license: On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:01:06 +0100 Eddy Derick wrote:"[...] This license is available free of charge if you are developing open source implementations on open source platforms. For closed source licenses or licenses on proprietary platforms, a charge will be associated with a trademark license."While our 3D rose is still a 3D rose, whatever its name, "OpenGL" is well known in the tech world and we'd benefit from having it on our feature list.
Yup, I see several OpenGL licenses out there from potential owners: http://www.sgi.com/products/software/opengl/license.html http://www.opengl.org/about/logos/ http://www.khronos.org/legal/trademarks http://www.khronos.org/legal/license#topengl http://www.sgi.com/products/software/opengl/trademarks.pdf The problem is they all say something different. I'm guessing the sgi.com pdf to be correct (the one eddy quoted), and it would require we notate OpenGL a registered trademark of SGI. (which we *may* do in the about pane, not sure) However, every lawyer I've ever listened to always says you have to respect the most restrictive trademark if no distinction is made about the correct/current one by the owning entity. (or you have written confirmation from the owning entity) -- Alex