@michael PTS and the benchmarks needs to recompile on macos10.6 for macos himself and need a chance CGLSetFullScreen ---> CGLSetFullScreenOnDisplay
if not... OpenGL benchmarks are pointless--
Pointless because macos do not shutdown the 3D-Desktop wile the ogl Benchmark run witout the modificantions.
runs like runs in windows modus...
Last edited by Qaridarium; 08-30-2009 at 04:55 PM.
A major issue with PD is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. If you develop a useful piece of software, what is to stop a large corporation from taking your code, creating an extended clone of your software, and using their greater marketing power to render your code effectively obsolete?
This is similar to what Microsoft tried to do with their implementation of Java (they developed their own code so this isn't directly analogous with PD licensing, but there are similarities so please bear with me ).
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-251401.htmlSun sued Microsoft for $35 million in 1997, saying Microsoft breached its contract by trying to extend Java so it would work differently, and presumably better, on Windows computers.
Sun executives said they were able to use Microsoft as a distribution tool to get Java into the hands of users when the software was in its infancy. Then Sun's lawsuit froze Microsoft's plans to modify Java for its own benefit, and Java became established in the meantime.
Recall that Java was explicitly designed to be "Architecture Neutral and Portable". Had Java been released under a more naive licence, then there would have been nothing stopping MS from using their enormous market power to crush Java's cross-platform interoperability - effectively taking over control of the technology by ensuring their 'version' was most widely used. Surely if Java apps were only usable on Windows, this is a "step backwards". (it's also no coincidence that C# and .NET appeared at about this time)
Thus I think that while PD is obviously the least restrictive license, that is not enought in the "real world": GPL and similar licenses do more to protect the freedom of users and developers.
Also note that Microsoft's proprietary JVM implementation ceased development in 2001 (after they lost the lawsuit and thus the right to use "Java Compatible" trademarks). Hence, due to their licensing, any improvements/modifications they made to Java are now lost forever and so any "steps forward" that were made are also lost.
Of course, it is your choice to license your code however you wish. So as long as you don't mind having someone embrace, extend and then place restrictions your code for their own benefit there's no problem. However I'd argue that society as a whole loses in this case.