On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 03:35:50AM -0500, Russell Neches wrote: > I set about trying to figure out exactly what the problem is.
You should have just asked. It would have wasted a lot less of your time. > this license doesn't appear to clash with the [DFSG] No, it's simply annoying (like the old BSD-with-advertising-clause license). And GPL-incompatible. > It's clear enough that the BSD community and the FSF don't see > eye-to-eye on what, exactly, Free means. The BSD community has a much narrow definition, but that's beside the point. Theo de Raadt of the OpenBSD project has already announced that they will not be using this new license. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=107696705911864&w=2 > Clearly, XFree86 is a bit more complicated. Nevertheless, shouldn't we > be talking about how to work with the XFree86 Project to resolve the > issues (whatever they are), instead of talking about forking the whole > project? Debian has talked to them. Mandrake has talked to them. Gentoo has talked to them. OpenBSD has talked to them. Red Hat (or at least Alan Cox) has talked to them. Lots of other people have talked to them. THEY'RE NOT LISTENING. This is not Debian vs. XFree86, this is EVERYONE vs. XFree86. And it's not Debian talking about forking, it's everyone. If you still don't think there's a real problem, I'm sorry. -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
