RE: Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

["Dr. Rich Murphey" <Rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: forum-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:forum-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Paul Vojta
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 4:26 PM
> To: forum@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re:  Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3
> 
> > From: David Dawes <dawes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: forum@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re:  Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3
> > Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:45:52 -0500
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 01:36:57PM -0800, Paul Vojta wrote:
> >
> > >What about, ``others (e.g., X.org) are forking the code as a result of
> > >these changes''?
> >
> > Others had already forked the code for mostly political or "business"
> > reasons.  So what is your point?
> 
> Who are these others, how major are they, and how major were they prior
> to their fork?  I don't know of any offhand, and I suspect that they are
> either very minor players or are commerical entities.
> 
> Another post to this list indicates that OpenBSD, Mandrake, Debian, and
> X.org are not going along with the new license.  These are *major players*
> in X.
> 
> So, my point is, forking is bad.  Rightly or otherwise, this license
> change
> is causing forking of an order of magnitude worse than has occurred in the
> past, and this should be taken very seriously in deciding whether to
> continue
> with the license change.
> 
> As they say in business, ``the customer is always right.''
> 
> --Paul Vojta, vojta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If your main concern is forking, you should be talking to those that are
forking.  Talk to X.org and let us know how it goes!

Rich

 


_______________________________________________
Forum mailing list
Forum@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum