X Strike Force XFree86 SVN commit: r1567 - in trunk/debian: . local
Author: branden
Date: 2004-06-23 17:41:02 -0500 (Wed, 23 Jun 2004)
New Revision: 1567
Modified:
trunk/debian/CHANGESETS
trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml
Log:
(cosmetic) Fix extraneous word.
Modified: trunk/debian/CHANGESETS
===================================================================
--- trunk/debian/CHANGESETS 2004-06-23 22:38:48 UTC (rev 1566)
+++ trunk/debian/CHANGESETS 2004-06-23 22:41:02 UTC (rev 1567)
@@ -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, 1566
+ 1562, 1563, 1564, 1565, 1566, 1567
vim:set ai et sts=4 sw=4 tw=80:
Modified: trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml
===================================================================
--- trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml 2004-06-23 22:38:48 UTC (rev 1566)
+++ trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml 2004-06-23 22:41:02 UTC (rev 1567)
@@ -426,9 +426,9 @@
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.
+XFree86 codebase.) While this 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
Reply to: