On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 11:15:15AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 12:18:19AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 11:58:12AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > The X autoconf stuff is not DFSG-free: it's licensed under the X-Oz > > > license. > > > > After Branden's mail to -legal, I'm going to definitely agree. This, of > > course begs the question, how can we distribute XFree86 with this stuff > > enabled at all? And if we can continue to distribute it, we ought to > > make use of it, but I somehow doubt that's going to be the case. > > > > Have I been reading things correctly in that the idea behind the license > > audit of the current codebase is that all the non-free stuff should be > > purged if possible? If this means that the autoconfiguration code is > > going too, then we'll have to fall back on our other options. I'm going > > to try and look in to what other distros do to configure X to see where > > we're going. If anyone wants to contribute to that, feel free. The basic > > idea being that if we can steal some autoconfiguration code it'll save > > us plenty of time and effort. > > Notice that 4.4.0 should not need as much configuration code, as it > should mostly be able to run configuration file free, at least if the > plans about this where successful.
Err, did you read the mail you were replying to? > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 11:58:12AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > The X autoconf stuff is not DFSG-free: it's licensed under the X-Oz > > > license. We can't incorporate the autoconf stuff, period. -- Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org
pgpBTGSryHdXk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
