Re: X.org plans for the lenny cycle
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 11:38 +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 11:06:19AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
> >A long-standing bug which should be thought about is the GL licensing
> >problem . SGI kindly contributed code for GL support in X, but their
> >licence is not DSFG. Upstream is not comfortable with the situation
> >either and there have been intentions to approach colleagues at SGI to
> >see about rationalising the licence, to the common X11 licence or
> >otherwise. However these correspondences proceed at a glacial
> >corporate rate - not high on corporate SGI's TODO list, you might say.
> >We've conveniently been ignoring the problem for Debian stable, do we
> >continue doing so, or are we capable of prodding SGI to accelerate the
> >discussions? Or do we ditch OpenGL support from Debian... ?
> I'm currently working for SGI (together with Russell Coker, in the
> same project).
> > bugs #368560, #368559, #211765 (I think this one is redundant, the
> >original bug mitosed into the others) and #368564
> Aníbal Monsalve Salazar
That sounds promising! It would be an Honourable Task if you and
Russell could find who's responsible for the GL licences and get the
inconsistency wiped. There are fears SGI is no longer in control of the
code . On the X.org side it was Jim Gettys who was going to try to
work on the licence problems . No doubt worth liasing with him if
you're able to proceed with this task.