| 1 |
John Nilsson wrote: |
| 2 |
> I think you are wrong. ;) I think it *can* be argued sensibly. For these |
| 3 |
> reasons. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> 1. Virtually all operating systems today ships with some GUI. |
| 6 |
> 2. GNU (as in Gnu Public License) seems to regard the X Windows System |
| 7 |
> as a core system component. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> All you *need* for a linux based operating system is linux and a static |
| 10 |
> binary called /sbin/init. Clearly the "Base system" referred to in GPL |
| 11 |
> extends to more than that. |
| 12 |
If you go that far, then I would say something like 50% of all Kernel |
| 13 |
modules, cannot be considered a core part of the system. How many useres |
| 14 |
actually need some exotic crypto patch in the kernel? Now see how many |
| 15 |
users actually need XFree. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Even though I argue for compatibility, I still think it is correct to |
| 19 |
> not ship XFree86. Mostly because Gentoo would and the OSS world would be |
| 20 |
> far better of with a more "geekish" and open development of the X11 |
| 21 |
> implementation. |
| 22 |
I agree. If there was any reasonable alternative (by reasonable, I meen |
| 23 |
working and compatible) to XFree86, I would be glad to use it, rather |
| 24 |
than look for ways to agree GPL with new Xfree license. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Wkr, |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Sergey Kuleshov <svyatogor@g.o> |
| 29 |
Home Page: http://dev.gentoo.org/~sergey |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives