Re: License furor

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

mark kandianis wrote:
i see a flak responded to you about is going to put in _new_ features.
that'd be an improvement since they didn't do much for the first release ;-) if they are any good we
can take them and not have to attribute them because they don't believe in that. what comes around goes
around, eh?

X.Org has never said we don't believe in attribution, and would like to know ASAP if you find any code in X.Org that is not properly attributed.

XFree86 is welcome to incorporate X.Org features, just as they have been
doing for over a decade with the releases from the previous organizations
doing the main X11 releases.   To do so, they just need to comply with
the level of attribution required in the licenses in the code, which
for most of the code mainly involves copying the copyright and license
notices in with the code changes.

The only difference is, once XFree86 does so, they don't have to modify all
their documentation and anywhere else they have attributions and have all
the redistributors do so as well, to include a big notice that the code
contains work from the X.Org Foundation.

Besides, if it's really devotion to proper attribution, shouldn't the XFree86
attribution statements say that XFree86 would never have existed if not for the
original code released by the MIT X Consortium and that 90% of the code outside
the DDX levels was originally from the X11 core releases?

	-Alan Coopersmith-           alan.coopersmith@xxxxxxx
	 Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering

Forum mailing list

[X.Org]     [XFree86]     [XFree86 Discussion]     [XFree86 Newbie]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Samba]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux