On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 06:25:42PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> 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?)
freedesktop.org:/cvs/x{org,libs,apps,server}
> 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.
I do not want to see the 1.1 license spread anywhere, something I have
repeatedly said. I even nuked the AutoConfig() stuff from the XFree86
DDX.
> >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.
I personally don't have the time to be spending on licensing issues as
it is (hell, I'm not even doing that much code work as it stands). Are
you able to continue like this?
AIUI, most of the 'questionable' code was contributed by others, and/or
is non-copyrightable.
--
Daniel Stone <daniels@debian.org>
Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature