Re: XFree86 license difficulties
On 2004-02-03 00:46:13 +0000 Måns Rullgård <mru@kth.se> wrote:
> As much as I'd like to, I don't have any references. However, neither
> does the FSF. They are simply making claims with no backing
> whatsoever.
You're making claims with no backing. In my position, would you believe Måns Rullgård or FSF more about how FSF will seek to enforce its licence? If Eben Moglen tries to enforce the FSF view, will Måns Rullgård defend us successfully or insure us?
>> Sorry, your telepathy is wrong. I didn't query the run-time-only case
>> because I'm not particularly interested in that right now. Most
>> software for XFree86 that I have seen includes files at compile.
> No, they merely include an instruction to the dynamic linker to link
> in libX11.so.
I should have noted that I have mostly seen window manager code. It seems they're not typical. Sorry for the misleading message, but I'd still prefer replies to the case that concerns me more.
Bah anti-GNU zealots, driving us off-topic.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Reply to: