Hi, On 15 September 2013 11:48, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas <j...@wxcvbn.org> wrote: > 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.
I agree. The fact that there's a newer version of FVWM in ports is fine; FVWM in base, despite being older might be a minor nuisance, but not insurmountable. -- Thomas Adam
