On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Marc Espie <es...@nerim.net> wrote: > 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...
Enhanced Window Manager Hints.
