On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 12:18:19AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 11:58:12AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: > > The X autoconf stuff is not DFSG-free: it's licensed under the X-Oz > > license. > > After Branden's mail to -legal, I'm going to definitely agree. This, of > course begs the question, how can we distribute XFree86 with this stuff > enabled at all? And if we can continue to distribute it, we ought to > make use of it, but I somehow doubt that's going to be the case. We can't. Preferably, we wouldn't distribute it, full stop. But there you go. > Have I been reading things correctly in that the idea behind the license > audit of the current codebase is that all the non-free stuff should be > purged if possible? If this means that the autoconfiguration code is > going too, then we'll have to fall back on our other options. I'm going > to try and look in to what other distros do to configure X to see where > we're going. If anyone wants to contribute to that, feel free. The basic > idea being that if we can steal some autoconfiguration code it'll save > us plenty of time and effort. Well, there are two options: * Distribute XFree86 without autoconf, et al. * Put XFree86 in non-free. Take your pick. -- Daniel Stone <daniels@debian.org> Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org
Attachment:
pgpjAkAxO7Gak.pgp
Description: PGP signature