Re: License furor | |
| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] | |
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 01:29:25PM -0400, William M. Quarles wrote: > Paul Vojta wrote: > > I've reread this thread just now, and I don't see the Inquirer mentioned > > at all. In fact, "grep -i inquir 2004-May.txt" doesn't find anything > > either. > > Then it's on the Fedora thread, I apologize. > <http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14511> OK, I've read that article, but it offers nothing new, just a recounting of facts as I already knew them. In short, the facts don't speak for themselves, or at least (by themselves) they don't lead to a conclusion that there's anything wrong with x.org. The xf86 1.1 license adds a new type of condition that has not been used in open source licenses before, and I see nothing wrong with them not wanting to be bound by that condition. -- Paul Vojta, vojta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ 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]
![]() |