Re: Potential future licensing issues with X.org (code merged from XFree86)
Daniel Stone wrote:
FYI, I mean I assume nobody but David Dawes is obsessed with spreading
it, so for these 'implictly-but-not-explicitly 1.1' commits, we only
really have to worry about the stuff he wrote. :-)
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 06:25:42PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Daniel Stone wrote:
Replying from my PDA is hard, so I'll just briefly say that I have one
hundred per cent confidence in the tree as it stands,
Um, in the X.org tree, you mean? (Or in the Debian tree, in which I have
confidence as well?)
If you refer to the X.org tree, well, I am specifically worried about the code
written by David Dawes after and committed 2-12-04 (I assume nobody else is
obsessed with spreading the XFree86 1.1 license as far as possible).
Luckily, most of this is in the config files which will probably never be
used in the modular trees, but some of it isn't.
I do not want to see the 1.1 license spread anywhere, something I have
repeatedly said. I even nuked the AutoConfig() stuff from the XFree86
I personally don't have the time to be spending on licensing issues as
it is (hell, I'm not even doing that much code work as it stands). Are
you able to continue like this?
Yeah, given that it's a one-time thing (this is just due to David
Dawes's claims about what is under the 1.1 license, and presumably there
will be no future unchecked merges from the XFree86 tree).
I'm a bit paranoid about licensing issues; I have actually avoided code
work on projects until their licensing was cleared up.
AIUI, most of the 'questionable' code was contributed by others, and/or
Right. Unfortunately, that's most of it, not all of it. :-P
Does it seem reasonable to worry about
* the code from post-2-12-2004 commits which appears to be actually
contributed by David Dawes, excluding that which is not of significant
* the code from the 'X-Oz' commit
and to not worry about any other commits?
If so, I will check these repos for traces of code from those specific
and report back with the short list, if there is any. (I believe there
is a little, unfortunately.)