On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 08:09:27PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >So, what happened is that we have autoconfig code available to us under > >the XFree86 1.0 (3-clause BSD) licence, which is DFSG-free; this is the > >same code that's currently in the X.Org tree, which appeared to form > >the core of Nathaniel's concerns. > > That's Nathan*a*el. :-) > > Looks good. I was, like Branden, confused by the silent relicensing by > David Dawes in the XFree86 repo in September 2003. :-( Yup. > The *other* thing I was concerned about are the code by David Dawes & > friends which he committed in the period when he claims that new code > was licensed under the 1.1 license despite not changing the license > notice in the specific files. That stuff is nearly all trivial, > however. I made a list of some sort of some of that at some point, I > seem to remember. Do you think you could update that list in light of what we know now about the original licensing of the X autoconfig code? -- G. Branden Robinson | If you make people think they're Debian GNU/Linux | thinking, they'll love you; but if branden@debian.org | you really make them think, they'll http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | hate you. -- Don Marquis
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature