On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:42:10AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 07:42:24AM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote: > > > * Should we go our own way starting from the "sanitized" XFree86 CVS > > > snapshot we've prepared? > > > > I don't see much point in doing this again since other people have > > already done this in the past, right? And if we don't use one of the two > > main X trees that would end up putting a lot more work on XSF's > > shoulders to track patches. > > The advantage to this is that we know where the code came from with that > tree. Several times, possible issues with XFree86 license contamination > have been raised with the X.Org folks, and no concrete action has been > taken. > > Let me mitigate that complaint by observing: > 1) Maybe no one is sure whose bailiwick it is; We need people who are very good at legal stuff and are willing to take it on - telling us about it won't do much good when we're all flat-out busy with other stuff, with very little time to look at X. > 2) Most of the X.Org/freedesktop.org folks aren't as psychotically > meticulous about license issues as I am; ... which isn't to say that we don't care. > 3) Figuring out which license goes with which commits to XFree86 CVS is > major challenge given the shifting sands of XFree86's own > represenatations on the subject. For example, as I have pointed out > elsewhere[1], David Dawes of XFree86 has asserted that the new > XFree86 license can attach to a file without any evidence of that > fact being in the entire source tree (or even in the CVS commit > message, which wouldn't suffice anyway). > > I am pretty confident this particular problem of contamination will be > straightened out. I just don't know when. It will, and must be. There is no lack of will here. > > We could go with multiple implementations of the xserver and just use > > the FreeDesktop.Org xlibs if wanted, that should cut down on a lot of > > the work since you would only be duplicating the xserver. However, if > > FreeDesktop.Org's xserver really does include the equivalent of the > > X.Org xserver there may be little point in having multiple xservers in > > the archive. > > It does not, and it may be quite some time before it does. It will not; the 'independent' in DIX is a misnomer designed to convince naive idiots new to X that you can put the Xorg DDX on top of the KDrive DIX and have stuff just work. Fools. -- Daniel Stone <daniels@debian.org> Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature