James Griffin <j...@kontrol.kode5.net> writes: > * Thomas Adam <tho...@xteddy.org> [2013-09-12 10:17:56 +0100]: > >> On 12 September 2013 06:10, Carson Chittom <car...@wistly.net> wrote: >> > Zoran Kolic <zko...@sbb.rs> writes: >> > >> >> In fact, fvwm is in base part. >> > >> > A while ago, there was a message to misc from the fvwm developer about >> > relicensing fvwm to allow a more recent version into base. I wonder if >> > there is any status update? >> >> That is I. Unfortunately, FVWM cannot be relicensed. >> >> -- Thomas Adam > > If it can't be relicensed so an up-to-date version can be included in > the base distribution then is there much point in it being there at all? > People can simply use the package/port to install a supported version > and the base distribution can simply have cwm as its main wm.
Lots of people use the base fvwm. Which works fine for them, even if older. Also fvwm is easier to work than cwm when you don't know either. -- jca | PGP: 0x06A11494 / 61DB D9A0 00A4 67CF 2A90 8961 6191 8FBF 06A1 1494
