On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 07:06:22PM +0100, Florian Kulzer wrote: > On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 16:24:04 -0000, Thomas Dickey wrote: > > Florian Kulzer wrote: > > > > > for developers to contribute. Someone can make such a statement without > > > being an aspiring contributor himself. I see neither a "promise" nor a > > > "lie" in what he writes. > > > > The lie was this: stating that it was not allowed to happen. > > There is no justification for calling someone a liar unless you can > prove that they intentionally spread false information.
More precisely ...unless you can prove that they intentionally spread information that they know to be false. This is very hard to prove, and an accuser's knowing for a fact that a statement is false has nothing to do with proving that the putative liar did not believe it to be true. In general, almost nobody is a liar because they invariably believe their own lie, and they fail the test for knowing that the statement is false. > > > Anytime the topic came up, invariably it was from people who were not > > going to do the work, but wanted someone else to do it for them. > > The wikipedia page on XFree86 certainly suggests that people willing to > contribute were denied CVS access. If you think you know better what > really happened then you should maybe correct this article and cite > sources to back you up. I have read horror stories about outsiders trying to correct information on wikipedia. I don't know whether they are true, but the stories seem to have more than mere truthiness. But it hardly matters. See above about proving someone is a liar. There does seem to be an internal controversy within the Xwindow developer community. How else can one explain the existence of a fork? Luckily, there seem to be enough real developers in that community to support two prongs of an Xwindows fork, maybe more. The two camps can compete for talent from the same pool. Perhaps the competition will cause to pool to grow. I persist in my belief that issues of changes in the license had something to do with the fork happening. It was not merely a spat over a design decision where both sides had ego involvement. And, certainly not a spat in which one side was *right* and the other side *wrong*. All this has become much to heated for me to be interested in finding supporting evidence for my position out there on the web, so don't bother challenging my persistent belief. If I found such, wouldn't the response be, 'Yes, but that's not the real reason.' ? Will historians of technology write tomes on this issue? I wonder. -- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
