On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 11:08:39AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:34:09AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > > The XSF should support only a single X server using the "standard" DDX > > for now. With a virtual package, someone could package up kdrive X > > servers and let people use them on smaller systems. > > kdrive has already been ITPed[2] by Daniel Stone, so I presume it's his > Intention to Package it. I intend to follow through on both my xlibs and xserver ITPs, yes. They aren't bitrotting. > > > * Should we go our own way starting from the "sanitized" XFree86 CVS > > > snapshot we've prepared? > > > > No, this way madness lies. However, I think we should make sure we > > understand where license issues exist in the upstream source; if that > > source is distributed in small pieces, we can correctly mark pieces > > incompatible with the GPL and get them fixed. > > I've shared my own observations on these points with the freedesktop.org > release wranglers list and X.Org Foundation list. We seem to be missing > someone to take action, and in the case of commits cloned between > XFree86 CVS and X.Org CVS, I haven't yet seen acknowledgment that there > is a problem (or enough information to rule out a problem) from the > person who did it. AIUI, these commits are all cleared by an author-internal filter as to licence cleanliness. > This has given me the impression that the matters I've raised aren't a > priority. It would be nice to be taken seriously instead, especially > given that most of the community has sent a very loud and strong message > that "yes, Virginia, license issues *are* important". They have priority, but it's important that a half-arsed job is actually worse than no job at all. We need someone skilled in these matters to do the audit, and do it *properly*; what we don't need is a false sense of security. > I do hasten to add that I'd appreciate your advice in communicating > these things more effectively. I know they've been seen and read. What > I don't know is why there isn't a fire under anyone to get them > resolved. Maybe the fire should be under me? Would I be useful to > freedesktop.org as a one-man license gestapo? You would be incredibly useful in this regard - I'm willing to give you access to the xserver (where debrix lies), xlibs, and xapps repository with a mandatory to do a licence audit, and cleanup if necessary. Would you be willing to do this? > (I do acknowledge that you've given me access to X.Org CVS and that I > haven't done anything with it. Maybe I just need a nudge?) *hopeful nudge*. > > > * If we standardize on just one, which one should it be? > > > > Each package should come from the canonical upstream source, not some > > repackaged distribution. > > Heh, well, deciding who's "canonical" these days is the real trick, > isn't it? :) ... take your pick out of three. Four if you count a dead tree the author publicly disowns as a learning exercise. :) > > The work at in the xserver and xlibs projects at freedesktop.org can be > > considered a prototype for how a modular X project might work; I'm hoping > > to get all of that sorted out this summer with X.Org. > > Excellent. Do you think there's any cause for concern with regards to > gray-area X servers like Xvfb and Xnest? I'm thinking of issues like > divergent extension support between users of XFree86 4.4.0 and later > and, well, the rest of the world. Could you please elaborate on this point? :) d -- Daniel Stone <daniels@debian.org> Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature