RE: Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[mark kandianis <linux-man@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:17 AM 2/22/2004 -0600, you wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith writes:
> > 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.
>
> Yes, that's a good technical description of
> the way in which the SI was abandoned in
> favor of the latest XFree86 release.
>
> > 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.
>
> Here's how I'd look at it.
>
> XC folded for lack of vendor support.
> X.org was created to hold the assets (eg. the SI).
> X.org abandoned the SI and forked XFree86.


sorry about the prev question. so i guess you could say that
X.org folder for lack of vendor support and is now x.org the foundation?
is there any diff in any of these orgs?  or is as alan says, they are all
basically the same? an outgrowth of the xc?


mark. 


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