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

[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