 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
History of BRL-CAD
editwhy does this page suddenly start talking about tanks for a whole (presumably ctrl-v'd) paragraph it supposed to be about a cad programme. link to the tank page --Anon.
Licensing
editThe licensing of BRL-CAD is unclear. The article states that it is merely open source, but checking the Sourceforge page tells me it is BSD and either GPL or LGPL. Is it BSD, GPL, and LGPL? Or is it BSD and GPL (in which case that should be mentioned and the open souce statement be changed to Free software, as that is more specific a category.) --maru (talk) contribs 20:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow!
editThe article was full of utter nonsense about the glorious history of the software and praise words. Listing libpng, -tcl and such as important parts of the package, explaining the benefits of CSG modelling and writing extensively of a bet between the programmers and astonishment of a "worlds first" in CAD modelling.... The text was pompous to the point of actually being funny :-) Cleared it up a bit but it still needs work to be neutral and informative. The BRL flowgraph at least doesn't tell anything meaningful to a person not already familiar or very interested in the software. --piksi (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)