| 1 |
On Friday 20 February 2004 00:10, Stewart Honsberger wrote: |
| 2 |
> Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
[snip] |
| 4 |
> > From these three points we conclude: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > 4) The XFree86 license 1.1 is incompatible with the GPL. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> So the only problem with this whole mess is that the XFree people want |
| 9 |
> us to give them credit in the same place and mannar as we already give |
| 10 |
> other third parties credit? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> XFree86, pending a replacement, is the only thing giving Linux any |
| 13 |
> credibility as a desktop operating system. Therefore, I would say it's |
| 14 |
> rather an integral part of the acceptance of our distribution and OS as |
| 15 |
> a whole. As such, I wouldn't think a one-liner in a README, INSTALL, or |
| 16 |
> product literature is such a Big Stinking Deal. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> It's not like they're making the software non-free, they're not |
| 19 |
> demanding royalties, they're not prohibiting the software from being |
| 20 |
> distributed, they're just asking for due credit. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
But that's not the point. |
| 24 |
The point is that the incompatability between the (new) X license and the GPL |
| 25 |
plus the presence of GPL drivers for X makes the portage tree tainted, |
| 26 |
license-wise.. or something along those lines. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives