On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 13:29, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 04:40, John Nilsson wrote:
> > > Not a very convincing argument, is it?  So why do you want to use the
> > > same style of argument here?
> > 
> > It is not the same thing. If Xfree86 can be argued to be a standard
> > componet of a system Gentoo can COMPLY with the Xfree86 License AND be
> > compatible with the GPL for those applications linking wiht Xfree86.
> 
> I am looking at 7 Gentoo boxes right now and only 3 of them have X on
> them.  Only one of them is actually running X currently, but all of them
> are being used and useful.  I also have several machines at work which
> run Linux and do not have X on them.
> 
> I don't think anyone would buy that *XFree86* is a standard component of
> a Gentoo system.  Not to mention, it seems like you're looking for some
> way for us to worm our way around the blatant disregard for the GPL that
> the XFree86 project has shown of late simply for what?  A couple
> drivers?  What has really changed in XFree86 4.4 (from the 4.3.9x
> releases, where the license changed) that is so damn important that we
> should all simply ignore our morals and bend to XFree86's wishes?

As stated in the same mail you are quoting, I am NOT arguing for Gentoo
to buy the Xfree86 crap. Just that it could be legaly possible.

> I would tend to argue *NOTHING* at all is worth that... especially not a
> few drivers.
> 
> Just my .02USD