On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 08:12:53PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > 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.
One thing we can do is re-do some of the useful code. I've been playing a bit with the newer one. One thing I really would like is for chromium (video) and fvwm to play nice with each other, namely an implementation of the stuff that makes it possible to go fullscreen and back. Point me in the right direction, and I will look at rewriting this under a reasonable licence...
