On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 05:45:47PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 10:28:30AM +1000, Adam Conrad wrote: > > As a follow-up to my patch posting for VIA support, here's a quick > > discussion on licensing from IRC: > > > > infinity = 'Adam Conrad' > > overfiend = 'Branden Robinson' > > > > <infinity> No comment on the VIA driver patch? > > <overfiend> haven't done anything with it yet, sorry > > <infinity> I didn't write about licensing, but I just duoble-checked, > > and everything is clean. > > <infinity> CVS rev 1.9 of the Imakefile claims the changes between 1.8 > > and 1.9 are under the 1.1 license. Ironically, those changes break the > > compile and I rolled back to version 1.8 anyway. > > <infinity> All the other files in via/* are under the old license (and > > won't be relicensed without consent from VIA/S3), and everything outside > > of via/ was changed by hand by me, so no changes were pulled from > > upstream. > > <overfiend> okay. You don't want to post to -x about this? > > <infinity> I'll just post this IRC log. :) > > <overfiend> okay :) > > In light of recent messages by David Dawes to the XFree86 devel > list[1][2][3], I'm not sure it is safe to include anything from XFree86 > CVS after 2003-02-11, even in the via driver. The simple reality of copyright law is that David Dawes cannot relicense something on behalf of other contributors, and that whatever copyright the authors (in this case, VIA/S3) have put on the code, stands. Whether or not it was later merged into XFree86 by an external party (Mr. Dawes), is completely irrelevant. -- Daniel Stone <daniels@debian.org> Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature