On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 02:16:04AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 11:08:39AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I've shared my own observations on these points with the freedesktop.org
> > release wranglers list and X.Org Foundation list. We seem to be missing
> > someone to take action, and in the case of commits cloned between
> > XFree86 CVS and X.Org CVS, I haven't yet seen acknowledgment that there
> > is a problem (or enough information to rule out a problem) from the
> > person who did it.
>
> AIUI, these commits are all cleared by an author-internal filter as to
> licence cleanliness.
I don't understand this. What's an "author-internal filter"? If it's
another term for "individual judgement", we've already seen that fail.
> > This has given me the impression that the matters I've raised aren't a
> > priority. It would be nice to be taken seriously instead, especially
> > given that most of the community has sent a very loud and strong message
> > that "yes, Virginia, license issues *are* important".
>
> They have priority, but it's important that a half-arsed job is actually
> worse than no job at all. We need someone skilled in these matters to do
> the audit, and do it *properly*; what we don't need is a false sense of
> security.
Yes. Someone probably needs to write a letter to UCB's Director of
Technology Licensing to clarify some of the old BSD stuff in the XFree86
tree[1].
> > Would I be useful to freedesktop.org as a one-man license gestapo?
>
> You would be incredibly useful in this regard - I'm willing to give you
> access to the xserver (where debrix lies), xlibs, and xapps repository
> with a mandatory to do a licence audit, and cleanup if necessary. Would
> you be willing to do this?
Let me sleep on it a bit more.
> > Excellent. Do you think there's any cause for concern with regards to
> > gray-area X servers like Xvfb and Xnest? I'm thinking of issues like
> > divergent extension support between users of XFree86 4.4.0 and later
> > and, well, the rest of the world.
>
> Could you please elaborate on this point?
Well, if someone implements a new server extension, it would be nice to
have those supported in the "fake" severs like Xvfb and Xnest as well.
Those X servers are often used for purposes such that feature-parity
with the real, graphics-card-driving X servers is a major plus.
If Xnest and Xvfb are split off, the implementation of new server
extensions (or improvements to existing extensions) may get dropped on
the floor.
I'm leaving Xprint out of this as it is already forked, and is a very
strange beast that I do not understand at all, except for the broadest
principle.
[1] Message-id: <20040205060300.GA2105@deadbeast.net>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00075.html
--
G. Branden Robinson |
Debian GNU/Linux | If ignorance is bliss,
branden@debian.org | is omniscience hell?
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature