From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-dev-return-10712-arch-gentoo-dev=gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> Received: (qmail 19959 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2004 11:22:31 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (128.193.0.39) by eagle.gentoo.oregonstate.edu with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP; 27 Feb 2004 11:22:31 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([128.193.0.34] helo=eagle.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Awg4c-0006UP-LW for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:22:30 +0000 Received: (qmail 30739 invoked by uid 50004); 27 Feb 2004 11:22:30 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-unsubscribe@gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-subscribe@gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 28885 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2004 11:22:30 +0000 Message-ID: <403F2AE1.4040306@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:32:49 +0200 From: Svyatogor <svyatogor@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040208) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <1076987863.15233.27.camel@localhost> <200402251532.01210.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <200402250454.47750.iggy@gentoo.org> <403DF481.9090904@gentoo.org> <1077801662.20008.2.camel@localhost> <403DF80C.6060407@gentoo.org> <87fzcx97k7.fsf@killr.ath.cx> <403E1759.1030001@gentoo.org> <87brnl1aoh.fsf@killr.ath.cx> <87brnl1aoh.fsf@killr.ath.cx> <403EF47B.3010407@gentoo.org> <20040227091048.175628C016@derisoft.derived-software.demon.co.uk> <1077874832.30569.3.camel@newkid.milsson.nu> <20040227095255.861168C016@derisoft.derived-software.demon.co.uk> <1077877553.5810.21.camel@newkid.milsson.nu> In-Reply-To: <1077877553.5810.21.camel@newkid.milsson.nu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] No XFree86 w/ new license X-Archives-Salt: 3696f07c-3ad6-4c2b-b549-8ab4b57fcc91 X-Archives-Hash: 287792f34363680814f16bfb3a7f669c John Nilsson wrote: > I think you are wrong. ;) I think it *can* be argued sensibly. For these > reasons. > > 1. Virtually all operating systems today ships with some GUI. > 2. GNU (as in Gnu Public License) seems to regard the X Windows System > as a core system component. > > All you *need* for a linux based operating system is linux and a static > binary called /sbin/init. Clearly the "Base system" referred to in GPL > extends to more than that. If you go that far, then I would say something like 50% of all Kernel modules, cannot be considered a core part of the system. How many useres actually need some exotic crypto patch in the kernel? Now see how many users actually need XFree. > > Even though I argue for compatibility, I still think it is correct to > not ship XFree86. Mostly because Gentoo would and the OSS world would be > far better of with a more "geekish" and open development of the X11 > implementation. I agree. If there was any reasonable alternative (by reasonable, I meen working and compatible) to XFree86, I would be glad to use it, rather than look for ways to agree GPL with new Xfree license. Wkr, -- Sergey Kuleshov <svyatogor@gentoo.org> Home Page: http://dev.gentoo.org/~sergey -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list