| 1 |
On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 10:10, Phil Richards wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2004-02-27, Brad Laue <brad@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Matthew Kennedy wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Stewart <blkdeath@g.o> writes: |
| 5 |
> > >>Graphical User Environment = Market Acceptance. Period. |
| 6 |
> > > Irrelevant. |
| 7 |
> > Very relevant. The year Linux begins to make its big stand as an |
| 8 |
> > end-user operating system its chief graphical component is rejected |
| 9 |
> > en-masse in a game of license-chicken. Who will blink first? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> It may be relevant to "let's get as many people to use Linux as possible". |
| 12 |
> It is irrelevant to the legality, or otherwise, of distributing GPL and |
| 13 |
> new-XFree86 licensed code. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> "But, Your Honour, we only included Microsoft Office without a license |
| 16 |
> to do so from Microsoft in the Gentoo distribution to give it more |
| 17 |
> chance on the desktop. How can that be against the law?" |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Not a very convincing argument, is it? So why do you want to use the |
| 20 |
> same style of argument here? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
It is not the same thing. If Xfree86 can be argued to be a standard |
| 23 |
componet of a system Gentoo can COMPLY with the Xfree86 License AND be |
| 24 |
compatible with the GPL for those applications linking wiht Xfree86. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-John |
Archives