| 1 |
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 17:43, Luke-Jr wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 19 February 2004 10:18 pm, Tal Peer wrote: |
| 3 |
> > But that's not the point. |
| 4 |
> > The point is that the incompatability between the (new) X license and the |
| 5 |
> > GPL plus the presence of GPL drivers for X makes the portage tree tainted, |
| 6 |
> > license-wise.. or something along those lines. |
| 7 |
> Any reason such drivers cannot DEPEND on XFree<3.4 (or wherever the new |
| 8 |
> license's usage begins)? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
This may be a good point and worth further analysis. However just |
| 11 |
because we pretend that's the dependency, it isn't a real dependency in |
| 12 |
any sense and neither the software itself nor its licenses have changed, |
| 13 |
so legally your point may be moot. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Thanks, |
| 16 |
Donnie |
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 19 |
Desktop project co-manager, |
| 20 |
Cluster project co-lead, |
| 21 |
Developer Relations, |
| 22 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives