Xorg Now GPL??

[Daniel Stone]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:17:28PM +0200, Marc Balmer wrote:
> * Paulo Cesar Pereira de Andrade wrote:
> > Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > Given that it would solve no problems we're currently experiencing, and
> > > would introduce new ones, we don't see any point in relicensing.
> > 
> >   It would most likely cause some (hopefully) short term problems. But
> > in the long run, it would be better and should attract more contributors.
> > Also, a fork probably would be positive, as people usually work better
> > when there is "an opposite side"; someone they want to prove they are
> > better (sorry can't express very well in english but I think I exposed
> > the idea).
> > 
> >   It would require rewriting a lot of code also, to become fully GPL,
> > but at start would be just accepting GPL code.
> 
> becoming fully GPL would be the end X.  The GPL is not a free license.

You mean in the same way that X11R6.5 was the death of X? Or in the same
way that XFree86 4.4rc3 was the death of X?

We provide an SI.  The S stands for Sample.  We do not have a monopoly
on X development.  Yes, we need to start taking our responsibilities as
a standards/specifications provider more seriously and sort the
documentation out, but it's not like it's impossible to reimplement X
with your own codebase, using whatever license you feel like declaring
is the one ultimately free and pure license.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20080827/fa3af0e7/attachment.pgp>