Re: X.org plans for the lenny cycle
I forwarded that information internaly to my manager about a week ago
(after a discution with jcristeau), I believe that the message is:
* If it affects only Debian SGI (as a corporation) will not care and
treat us as a bunch of nitpickers hippies.
(julien sent me a link I can't find now where fedora seemed to state
that they had the same concerns)
* It is possible that SGI doesn't own the code anymore (and that Khronos does)
On Feb 11, 2008 2:20 PM, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 12:46:30PM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
> >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 [1]. 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
Then we should contact SGI all together...
> >>>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... ?
Please let's not make these kinds of calls,...
--
Niv Sardi
Reply to: