1 |
On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 04:40, John Nilsson wrote: |
2 |
> > Not a very convincing argument, is it? So why do you want to use the |
3 |
> > same style of argument here? |
4 |
> |
5 |
> It is not the same thing. If Xfree86 can be argued to be a standard |
6 |
> componet of a system Gentoo can COMPLY with the Xfree86 License AND be |
7 |
> compatible with the GPL for those applications linking wiht Xfree86. |
8 |
|
9 |
I am looking at 7 Gentoo boxes right now and only 3 of them have X on |
10 |
them. Only one of them is actually running X currently, but all of them |
11 |
are being used and useful. I also have several machines at work which |
12 |
run Linux and do not have X on them. |
13 |
|
14 |
I don't think anyone would buy that *XFree86* is a standard component of |
15 |
a Gentoo system. Not to mention, it seems like you're looking for some |
16 |
way for us to worm our way around the blatant disregard for the GPL that |
17 |
the XFree86 project has shown of late simply for what? A couple |
18 |
drivers? What has really changed in XFree86 4.4 (from the 4.3.9x |
19 |
releases, where the license changed) that is so damn important that we |
20 |
should all simply ignore our morals and bend to XFree86's wishes? |
21 |
|
22 |
I would tend to argue *NOTHING* at all is worth that... especially not a |
23 |
few drivers. |
24 |
|
25 |
Just my .02USD |
26 |
|
27 |
-- |
28 |
Chris Gianelloni |
29 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
30 |
Games Team |
31 |
|
32 |
Is your power animal a penguin? |