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