From: Bjørn Roald (bjorn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-25 02:44:52
Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Malte Clasen wrote:
>> Jose wrote:
>>> On 1/24/07, Bjørn Roald <bjorn_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> Which may allow use of AGG 2.4 code in Boost under the boost license.
>>>> Any thoughts on that?
>>> But 2.4 is an old release, so it looks like it wouldn't be a good idea to
>>> aim for serious AGG integration
>> It's not current, but far from being outdated. There seem to be several
>> people (including me) who stick with it because of licensing issues. I'm
>> quite sure that a branch starting at 2.4 could be successful from a
>> user's perspective, considering the comments on the agg mailing list.
>> However, without a motivated lead developer, this is going to be a dead
>> end, since there's currently no AGG development community that could
>> switch to the Boost branch. But if someone wants to start working on
>> this, I'd say this is the time to do so.
> I agree. 2.4 is a good release. It's a good point for branching.
> I had high hopes for some work on antigrain, views and rendering
> and GIL. I did a quick demo on integration when GIL was reviewed.
> It's possible to fork Antigrain 2.4 and even boostify it in the
> process. I'm already quite familiar with it. But I'm not sure
> there's enough time to do it, let alone maintain and support it.
> I'm still hoping Maxim changes his mind.
I strongly agree with you. The way things seems to me from lurking in
the agg mailing list is that Maxim has some clear motivation for the
1. Continue to allow general "free" access to AGG
2. Make those who intend make AGG "their own" product pay him a bit for
a different license
I think this is only fair. Antigrain Geometry 2.4 is as many have said,
a *great* gift to the community. And AGG >= 2.5 is "free" for the GPL
community. The fact that Maxim clearly don't want others to take all
profit for his great work is easy to understand.
I think his motivation is primarily to make a decent living from his
product. This will allow him to continue using his time on what he
clearly is talented and skilled at. In itself that is a very good
thing. If he is to change his mind about the licensing, as well as how
to contribute to the community, I think it is reasonable that those
that have ideas (proven by experience), or other means that can convince
him, come forward and bring their information to him. Now is the time.
It may be best to discuss this privately with Maxim, see contact
information on http://www.antigrain.com/mcseem/index.html
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk