glib dependency for the X Server
Egbert Eich
eich at suse.de
Wed Apr 5 05:24:31 PDT 2006
Matthieu Herrb writes:
> Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Monday 03 April 2006 11:42, Greg Stark wrote:
> >> Do any of the closed X server vendors currently ship statically linked
> >> executables? How would they feel about having to provide linkable objects
> >> so the user can relink the X server with a new version of the library?
> >
> > Do we really want to continue to encourage closed X?
>
> The MIT/X license is not closed X. It is the really free X.
>
> If the current policy defined in Jim's strawman proposition is going to
> change, I'd like to hear about it from the X.Org BoD or in the upcoming
> bylaws of the X.Org fundation.
>
> I hope we can avoid forking X again to keep it free.
I also hop that this will be the goal.
We really should take the issue that some packagers have with adding a
hard dependency to gpl/lgpl software more serious (besides that some
organizations are providing closed forks of our tree).
The problem really would be the hard dependency: the glibc issue is
different. As AlanC has pointed out it's not a hard dependency on a
particular version of the library but on the API that is provided by
this library. So any version of libc that happens to be available on
a system can be used. On BSD for example X is not using glibc at all.
If we could turn it into an optional dependency that adds a nice feature
to have but no requirement it would probably help to address the issues
that some people raise here.
Cheers,
Egbert.
More information about the xorg
mailing list