From: jsw@microunity.com (Jeff Weinstein)
Subject: Re: OpenGl vs PEX
Organization: MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:01:19 GMT

In article <Bw2qL2.3Ks@apollo.hp.com>, mcsavaney_d@apollo.hp.com (#David McSavaney) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.221904.12984@microunity.com> jsw@microunity.com (Jeff Weinstein) writes:
> >In article <Bvpxw8.K4x@apollo.hp.com>, mcsavaney_d@apollo.hp.com (#David McSavaney) writes:
> >> What about the software author that is required to purchase OpenGL source
> >> code to support platforms that do not provide OpenGL? What happens
> >> when they have to provide source code of _their_ product with embedded
> >> OpenGL calls to important customers? Or to put their application in escrow? 
> >> Do they have to pay the $300,000 (three hundred thousand dollars) for the 
> >> OpenGL source code license fee? What are the subsequent source code 
> >> redistribution fees?
> >
> > Are you suggesting that an application software developer would get PEX
> >from MIT, port it to some workstation platform that doesn't currently support
> >PEX and somehow integrate it with the hardware vendor's X server product(or
> >perhaps port the X server as well)?  If that isn't what you are suggesting
> >then I don't see why you are making this argument about OpenGL.
>                                                                             
> I must be caught in some degree of confusion here Jeff. If a software
> author has need to supply source code of their product for legal reasons
> then I _believe_ they will have an easier time if they use vendor-supplied
> software with readily-available run-time libraries embedded in
> the OS. I might still be confused over exactly what you mean tho'.

  Well, first you say that the software developer needs source code for
the libraries, then you say that they don't need the source code if
the libraries come from HP.  Which is is?  Why is a library from HP
somehow better than one purchased from Nth graphics?

  Your first message also seemed to imply that someone could take PEX
and PEXlib source from MIT, compile it on the HP, and then be able to use
that in their product.  I claim that to be completely false.  What they
get from MIT will contain only a (IMHO useless by itself) subset of
PEX functionality that will perform HUNDREDS of times slower than
a tuned version acquired directly from HP(assuming such a version was
available).

  As I understand it, based on HP comments at SIGGRAPH, HP has added
direct local rendering to their PEXlib implementation.  In other words
their version of PEXlib talks directly to the graphics hardware rather
than going through the X server to talk to the PEX extension.  If a
third party software developer got a portable version of PEXlib source
code it would only talk to the X server PEX extension, not the hardware
directly, and would thus be considerably slower.  So to get full
performance the application developer is still stuck going to HP to
get their PEXlib.

> >> Unfortunately SGI has adopted a three tiered software pricing structure
> >> similar to the software pricing structure used by many companies
> >> or products (take OSF's DCE pricing for example). It is a pricing structure 
> >
> >As far as I know Nth Graphics has only a level 1 OpenGL
> >license, which is a measly $25k.  The small third party software developer
> >can buy GL for the Sun or HP for about $1000 from Nth.
> 
> GL 4.0 from Nth Graphics for either HP or Sun is US$3,600 List Price
> for first, single development seat. Reductions apply for subsequent copies.
> (Price taken from Nth Graphics Price List dated 6/92)

  Thanks for clarifying this.

	--Jeff

-- 
Jeff Weinstein - X Protocol Police
MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc.
jsw@microunity.com
Any opinions expressed above are mine.