Dr. Rich Murphey writes:
> [snip]
> X.org forked XFree86. It's fascinating that
> the word 'fork' has become such a taboo.
> [snip]
Why do you think it has become taboo?
Everyone seems to be glossing over the fact that XFree86 forked the
MIT/XC tree first, many years ago. Bob created the technology and
licensed it in a way that people and organizations like XFree86 (and
others) COULD fork it.
Forking the tree wasn't taboo when XFree86 did it, and I don't
understand why anyone would have a problem with it now -- whether it's
Xouvert, Keith and Jim's modularized-and-autotooled fork, or the X.org
Foundation's monolithic tree.
XFree86 and MIT/XC/XPT worked together very amiably for a long time. I'd
really like to understand why this no longer seems possible. I think the
people involved with XFree86 should be flattered that the X.org
Foundation has chosen a recent snapshot of XFree86's tree as a starting
point.
XFree86 started by forking the MIT tree: so whose tree is it?
--
Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
_______________________________________________
Forum mailing list
Forum@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum
[XFree86]
[XFree86]
[XFree86 Newbie]
[IETF Annouce]
[Security]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Yosemite]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Samba]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Linux Resources]
