glib dependency for the X Server

[Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)]

On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 09:53:55 +0200 Erwin Rol <mailinglists at erwinrol.com>
babbled:

> On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 09:38 +0200, Matthieu Herrb wrote:
> > Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:08:41AM +0200, Matthieu Herrb wrote:
> > >> No, LGPL is not the same as the X/MIT or BSD license. It has more 
> > >> constraints.
> > >>
> > >> O.Org has firmly stated in the past that it would keep its code under 
> > >> the X/MIT license, so this is unacceptable.
> > > 
> > > This is not X.Org's code, it's ancillary.  You could make the argument
> > > that there's no usable MIT-licensed compiler, either, so X's dependency
> > > on same is also unacceptable.
> > 
> > In Eric's proposal Glib gets linked into the X server: you need it to 
> > run the server.
> > This is not at all the case with the C compiler (or with autotools and 
> > other [L]GPL like code already used).
> 
> What about the GNU C-library, that is LGPL. Does that make it
> "unacceptable" for you to use Xorg on Linux ?

well - to be pedantic the "gnu c library" has replacements such as bsd's or
commercial closed ones that provide the same "api". glib does not. a system
comes WITH libc always (ok - not always - there are very special cases it
doesnt).

> - Erwin
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xorg mailing list
> xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
> 


-- 
------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)    raster at rasterman.com
裸好多
Tokyo, Japan (東京 日本)