X Strike Force XFree86 SVN commit: r1566 - in trunk/debian: . local
Author: branden
Date: 2004-06-23 17:38:48 -0500 (Wed, 23 Jun 2004)
New Revision: 1566
Modified:
trunk/debian/CHANGESETS
trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml
Log:
Make some factual and orthographic corrections. Thanks to Daniel Stone for
pointing these out.
Modified: trunk/debian/CHANGESETS
===================================================================
--- trunk/debian/CHANGESETS 2004-06-23 22:31:58 UTC (rev 1565)
+++ trunk/debian/CHANGESETS 2004-06-23 22:38:48 UTC (rev 1566)
@@ -53,6 +53,6 @@
Add FAQ entries:
+ What is the story with XFree86 being forked?
+ What is the story with XFree86's license?
- 1562, 1563, 1564, 1565
+ 1562, 1563, 1564, 1565, 1566
vim:set ai et sts=4 sw=4 tw=80:
Modified: trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml
===================================================================
--- trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml 2004-06-23 22:31:58 UTC (rev 1565)
+++ trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml 2004-06-23 22:38:48 UTC (rev 1566)
@@ -422,26 +422,28 @@
<p>The presence of these stressors gave rise to (or exacerbated) personality
conflicts, and in 2003 a group of developers resolved to set up a separate
-development project, which was eventually christened <a
-href="http://www.freedesktop.org";>FreeDesktop.Org</a>. (Another group, <a
-href="http://www.xouvert.org";>Xouvert</a>, had also undertaken to fork the
+development project, which was initially christened <code
+class="other">xwin.org</code>, but later merged with an existing standardization
+project, <a href="http://freedesktop.org/";>freedesktop.org</a>. (Another group,
+<a href="http://www.xouvert.org";>Xouvert</a>, had also undertaken to fork the
XFree86 codebase.) While this was development was lauded by many redistributors
and feature-hungry end users, its short-term practical impact was fairly small.
OS distributors stuck with XFree86 because it was "ready" and it worked.
Futhermore, the continued use of the MIT/X11 license terms ensured that
cross-pollination between the projects would work to everyone's benefit. The
redistributors, and thus most end users, were expected to continue using
-XFree86, at the very least until FreeDesktop.Org had a replacement finished. No
-doubt, it was thought, some distributors would choose to stay with XFree86,
+XFree86, at the very least until one of the forks had a replacement finished.
+No doubt, it was thought, some distributors would choose to stay with XFree86,
anticipating that it would cherry-pick attractive new features, enhancements,
-and bug fixes from the FreeDesktop.Org codebase (the same process was expected
-to work in the other direction as well). Other distributors would likely ship
-both codebases and give their users the choice.</p>
+and bug fixes from the forked codebases (the same process was expected to work
+in the other direction as well). Other distributors would likely ship both
+codebases and give their users the choice.</p>
<h3><a id="xfree86license">What is the story with XFree86's license?</a></h3>
<p>The "wait-and-see" approach adopted by most vendors in the wake of Xouvert
-and FreeDesktop.Org forks changed in January 2004, when the XFree86 project <a
+and <code class="other">freedesktop.org</code> forks changed in January 2004,
+when the XFree86 project <a
href="http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-January/001892.html";>announced
its intention to change the license on its codebase</a>. The license combined
elements of the traditional MIT/X11 license, the original 4-clause BSD license
Reply to: