On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 12:18:19AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 11:58:12AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > The X autoconf stuff is not DFSG-free: it's licensed under the X-Oz
> > license.
> After Branden's mail to -legal, I'm going to definitely agree. This, of
> course begs the question, how can we distribute XFree86 with this stuff
> enabled at all? And if we can continue to distribute it, we ought to
> make use of it, but I somehow doubt that's going to be the case.
> Have I been reading things correctly in that the idea behind the license
> audit of the current codebase is that all the non-free stuff should be
> purged if possible? If this means that the autoconfiguration code is
> going too, then we'll have to fall back on our other options. I'm going
> to try and look in to what other distros do to configure X to see where
> we're going. If anyone wants to contribute to that, feel free. The basic
> idea being that if we can steal some autoconfiguration code it'll save
> us plenty of time and effort.
Notice that 4.4.0 should not need as much configuration code, as it
should mostly be able to run configuration file free, at least if the
plans about this where successful.