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

Re: Future of X packages in Debian

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

Reply to: