Author: branden Date: 2004-06-23 17:38:48 -0500 (Wed, 23 Jun 2004) New Revision: 1566
Modified: trunk/debian/CHANGESETS trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml Log: Make some factual and orthographic corrections. Thanks to Daniel Stone for pointing these out. Modified: trunk/debian/CHANGESETS =================================================================== --- trunk/debian/CHANGESETS 2004-06-23 22:31:58 UTC (rev 1565) +++ trunk/debian/CHANGESETS 2004-06-23 22:38:48 UTC (rev 1566) @@ -53,6 +53,6 @@ Add FAQ entries: + What is the story with XFree86 being forked? + What is the story with XFree86's license? - 1562, 1563, 1564, 1565 + 1562, 1563, 1564, 1565, 1566 vim:set ai et sts=4 sw=4 tw=80: Modified: trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml =================================================================== --- trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml 2004-06-23 22:31:58 UTC (rev 1565) +++ trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml 2004-06-23 22:38:48 UTC (rev 1566) @@ -422,26 +422,28 @@ <p>The presence of these stressors gave rise to (or exacerbated) personality conflicts, and in 2003 a group of developers resolved to set up a separate -development project, which was eventually christened <a -href="http://www.freedesktop.org";>FreeDesktop.Org</a>. (Another group, <a -href="http://www.xouvert.org";>Xouvert</a>, had also undertaken to fork the +development project, which was initially christened <code +class="other">xwin.org</code>, but later merged with an existing standardization +project, <a href="http://freedesktop.org/";>freedesktop.org</a>. (Another group, +<a href="http://www.xouvert.org";>Xouvert</a>, had also undertaken to fork the XFree86 codebase.) While this was development was lauded by many redistributors and feature-hungry end users, its short-term practical impact was fairly small. OS distributors stuck with XFree86 because it was "ready" and it worked. Futhermore, the continued use of the MIT/X11 license terms ensured that cross-pollination between the projects would work to everyone's benefit. The redistributors, and thus most end users, were expected to continue using -XFree86, at the very least until FreeDesktop.Org had a replacement finished. No -doubt, it was thought, some distributors would choose to stay with XFree86, +XFree86, at the very least until one of the forks had a replacement finished. +No doubt, it was thought, some distributors would choose to stay with XFree86, anticipating that it would cherry-pick attractive new features, enhancements, -and bug fixes from the FreeDesktop.Org codebase (the same process was expected -to work in the other direction as well). Other distributors would likely ship -both codebases and give their users the choice.</p> +and bug fixes from the forked codebases (the same process was expected to work +in the other direction as well). Other distributors would likely ship both +codebases and give their users the choice.</p> <h3><a id="xfree86license">What is the story with XFree86's license?</a></h3> <p>The "wait-and-see" approach adopted by most vendors in the wake of Xouvert -and FreeDesktop.Org forks changed in January 2004, when the XFree86 project <a +and <code class="other">freedesktop.org</code> forks changed in January 2004, +when the XFree86 project <a href="http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-January/001892.html";>announced its intention to change the license on its codebase</a>. The license combined elements of the traditional MIT/X11 license, the original 4-clause BSD license
