Re: Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[Alan Coopersmith <Alan.Coopersmith@xxxxxxx>]

Dr. Rich Murphey wrote:
> X.org abandoned its code base and adopted the whole XFree86 code base, and
> did so prior to the license change.  Perhaps there's a better description
> than 'fork' but I can't think of it.

If you look at the CVS trees, they start with X11R6.6 and then merge in changes
from XFree86.  The old code base wasn't abandoned, but XFree86 was mostly a
superset of it, so you end up at pretty much the same place.

In any case, I think we're both trying to say that the original description of
what X.org is doing forking because of license concerns isn't correct.  X.org
and it's various previous incarnations have maintained a separate fork for years,
and haven't started a new one just to deal with the license concerns.

> X.org didn't exist for many years after XFree86 started.  You probably mean
> the X consortium, which was a completely separate organization that closed
> many years ago.

Right - I was using the term generically to refer to the organizations that
owned the X.org domain and was responsible for the X11R6.x releases - it was
easier than saying "MIT, MIT X Consortium, X Consortium, The Open Group,
X.org Group, and now X.org Foundation."

--
	-Alan Coopersmith-          alan.coopersmith@xxxxxxx
	 Sun Microsystems, Inc. -- Operating Platforms Group
	 Solaris x86 & Interface Technology: X Window System

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