RE: license discussions
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 15:26, Dr. Rich Murphey wrote:
> Any impression that a vendor consortium will be a public servant will almost
> certainly change with time. We've been there before. He who does not learn
> from history is doomed to repeat it.
Exactly. Some people learn from history, and some do not.
This is why the X.org Foundation is *not* a vendor consortium, (despite the similarity of name to the predecessor organization, which was an industry consortium), and is an open membership organization, where anyone who contributes has say in its governance.
In contrast, XFree86 has governance with no say from anyone whatsoever except its board, which is self perpetuating, and composed mostly of people who are no longer active contributors to the X Window System.
well now i see what alex was hinting at by saying that gpl compatibility is politically motivated. obviously the fsf's self-interest was to make the new license a political issue and push their X and the foundation instead i.e. xfree86 1.1 is GPL incompatible.
thanks jim for pointing that out. i really missed that in alex's note.
seems to me jim you're cherry picking here. while i would agree that not all of xfree86's bod is actively coding, i would say that they are actively leading not writing, not pontificating but hacking man. hacking.
_______________________________________________ Forum mailing list Forum@xxxxxxxxxxx http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum
[Photo] [Yosemite] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Samba] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Linux Resources]