GLUT library and CVS

[Philip Balister]

This glut thing is getting silly. I found this in RH bugzilla:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107228

I'll try and work out my problem in such a way that survex need not
change. Good luck removing the dependency on glut :)

Philip

On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 09:46:55AM +0100, Olly Betts wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 10:30:11PM -0400, Philip Balister wrote:
> > Basically I have things called freeglut vs glut. dorking = fixing include
> > file and library names. I will go back and try changing the library order
> > to see if I can clear the headache up.
> 
> I had a quick look at the freeglut page.  It claims in the Google
> directory to be an "Open source implementation of GLUT with source and
> binary backwards compatibility" but that appears to be untrue from
> your experience...
> 
> If you can send me a diff showing your changes:
> 
> cvs diff -puN >	freeglut.patch
> 
> And a log showing how the build goes wrong:
> 
> make > freeglut.log 2>&1
> 
> (assuming bash or other bourne-like shell).
> 
> > > > and there may be an open source license issue.
> > > 
> > > What issue?  Debian regard glut as free software (libglut is in main).
> > 
> > Not sure, there was some remark in a freeglut file I found on one of these
> > rpm index sites :)
> 
> Their website claims that GLUT's licence doesn't allow you to distribute
> modified versions, but Debian managed to get clarification from GLUT's
> author:
> 
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=131997
> 
> In particular Mark Kilgard <mjk@nvidia.com> writes:
> 
>     Anthony,
> 
>     > Would it be possible for you to just make it absolutely clear that
>     > everyone's allowed to use, copy, and modify (and distribute their
>     > modifications) of libglut?
>     > 
>     > Just quoting the above and replying "Yes, that's fine" or similar
>     > would be okay.
> 
>     Yes, that's fine.
> 
> Cheers,
>     Olly
> 
> -- 
> Survex http://lists.survex.com/mailman/listinfo/survex