glib dependency for the X Server

Dave Airlie airlied at
Mon Apr 3 22:27:49 PDT 2006

> If an improved X is released as a closed binary on some embedded system,
> who cares? It is in the interest of the vendors doing that to put back
> improvements into the public X source to minimize their patch maintenance
> when X development starts diverging off into hyperspace needing a quad-CPU
> graphic card to get useable performance.

I do, I would like to use that work in some of my projects perhaps, or
I would like to avoid reinventing the wheel, reskinning the cat,
refixing the bug in some c+t chipset etc.. it should be in the
interests of those vendors to contribute back something after all they
just got a whole lot of code from others... but that is an MIT vs GPL
fight which will only make me produce the GPL X server I've long
threatented :-)

> The purpose of (L)GPL is to give more incentive to programmers to
> contribute back work knowing that it won't be improved and sold in
> closed binaries. The nature of one global X instance on a pc that
> everything needs to be compatible with, fulfills that goal.
> I don't care if any improvements i make get sold as improved closed
> static binaries in an embedded system, because i can do the same myself
> if i want to, which is more freedom than (L)GPL.
> The problem with (L)GPL is that it lacks specific clauses for embedded systems.

You aren't making any sense with your statements treating the GPL and
LGPL as the same thing, they aren't, I know they both have problems in
embedded systems, but that first paragraph is only for GPL, you can
put LGPL code into closed systems, of course you can you just have to
make sure someone can replace it....


More information about the xorg mailing list