glib dependency for the X Server
mailinglists at erwinrol.com
Mon Apr 3 03:22:20 PDT 2006
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 11:41 +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 11:15:59AM +0200, Erwin Rol wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 18:46 +1000, Russell Shaw wrote:
> > > Erwin Rol wrote:
> > > > What about the GNU C-library, that is LGPL. Does that make it
> > > > "unacceptable" for you to use Xorg on Linux ?
> > >
> > > The C lib is mostly generic functionality that can be easily
> > > found from other sources and under various licences. Glib is
> > > a one-off specific api, which would force the one and only
> > > Glib to be required.
> > Well one could always rewrite glib (or the parts that would be needed)
> > if one really needs a completely closed source system which includes
> > Xorg :-)
> Yes, because writing our own build system worked so well.
> X.Org is not an OS vendor. We do not build toolchains. Nor build
> Every hour that we spend maintaining this sort of stuff is an hour that
> could be better spent actually, y'know, working on X.
Exactly, so just use glib, and let the people that really want a closed
source Xorg setup rewrite glib with a different license. That way the
Xorg developers can now focus on Xorg, since glib is here now. And AFAIK
the LGPL does not cause any licensing problems in combination with
And gnome/gtk are used on a lot of non Linux systems that also use Xorg,
like *BSD and Solaris, so those systems already have the LGPL glib. And
even OS/X and Windows have glib versions.
So I think glib wouldn't be that bad of a choice.
More information about the xorg