glib dependency for the X Server
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
raster at rasterman.com
Mon Apr 3 03:41:45 PDT 2006
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:22:20 +0200 Erwin Rol <mailinglists at erwinrol.com>
> 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
> > systems.
> > 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
you missed the abort() issue.
> 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.
> - Erwin
> xorg mailing list
> xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) raster at rasterman.com
Tokyo, Japan (東京 日本)
More information about the xorg