Re: License issues

[mark kandianis <linux-man@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 04:53 PM 3/10/2004 +0100, you wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:36:09AM -0500, mark kandianis wrote:
> > At 09:38 PM 3/9/2004 +0100, you wrote:
> > >On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:55:05AM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:16:37PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >And now, you are openly lying to us, trying to say that there is no
> > >> >change, that this licence has always been the XFree86 licence, which is
> > >> >clearly false, and contrary to what everyone has been lead to believe
> > >>
> > >> I think you need to read what is written, rather than overreacting
> > >> to everything.
> > >
> > >Maybe i am overreacting, but i think that the claims that everything is
> > >fine, and has ever been such is still a lie. The licence change is not a
> > >good move, and it will only cause problems in the long run. Still it is
> > >your right to do so, but trying to deny that the practice did actually
> > >change is just cowardly hiding from your responsabilities in this issue.
> > >
> > >You well know that i have always been on your side on this and past
> > >issues, so, please let's at least be honest among ourselves.
> > >
> > >> The licensing *policy* has not changed.  XFree86 has exercised the
> > >> same freedom of licensing choice that it has been offering its
> > >> contributors for some time.  This is no secret, since there have
> > >> been MIT/X11 and GPL-incompatible licences published in our
> > >> LICENCE/COPYRIGHT docs for many years.  If people don't actually
> > >> go and read those details, then what does that say about the
> > >> importance they give to the licences?
> > >
> > >Well, but there is a difference. Those problematic files are rather
> > >minor, and a solution can be found.
> >
> >
> > big big change.  how cum?  why do you say that?  based on what
> > o troll master?
>
> Based on the licence audit Branden did. I don't remember all of it, and
> GLX is indeed problematic,

so is debian fixing that?  and removing it from the foundation code base
before it ships it?  and why didn't debian notice this before?  asleep at 
the wheel?
hard to believe that this is a real guardian of freedom who can so easily
be led astray.  i imagine he/you/it will come up with the angle that cuz you
always shipped it it's okay.  good one there.  i care but just so much.
a lot of hypocrisy there.

>  but many of the other problems where 4-clause
> BSD licences dating from a long time, and which Berkley has since then
> asked everyone to change to the 3-clause licence, or code that was not
> really used anymore (like the font compress related stuff).



i think that this is another bogus issue you are bringing up.  you
seem to skirt real issues and bring up your own agenda, which
obviously is very self-serving.  but that's what trolls do isn't it?


mark.



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