Re: Potential future licensing issues with X.org (code merged from XFree86)
Daniel Stone wrote:
>Replying from my PDA is hard, so I'll just briefly say that I have one
>hundred per cent confidence in the tree as it stands,
Um, in the X.org tree, you mean? (Or in the Debian tree, in which I have
confidence as well?)
If you refer to the X.org tree, well, I am specifically worried about the code
written by David Dawes after and committed 2-12-04 (I assume nobody else is
obsessed with spreading the XFree86 1.1 license as far as possible).
Luckily, most of this is in the config files which will probably never be
used in the modular trees, but some of it isn't.
>and that moving to
>6.7.0 is pointless and a waste of time.
Yeah; but I was also worried about, as I said:
>Also, the modular trees are likely to merge
> stuff from the monolithic tree, so it seemed important to clear this stuff
>up.
In fact, some of the modular trees at freedesktop.org have already merged
from 6.7.0, including code merged from XFree86 4.4 in the 'questionable' list
and code from the X-Oz commit.
This means that the modular trees have to be audited for such code before
being used in Debian, which is annoying.
Reply to: