On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 01:24:15PM -0500, David Dawes wrote: > > The most reasoned disagreement I've seen so far is "change is bad."
What about, ``others have tried this sort of thing and decided it was a bad idea''? What about, ``others (e.g., X.org) are forking the code as a result of these changes''? > My point all along has been that the XFree86 licensing policy has not > changed. If it is bad now, it was bad before. Why wasn't anyone > complaining before? Because it *was* different before. Courtesy of www.archive.org, the page http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licence.html used to read (in part): | The main licence we use is based on the traditional Massachusetts | Institute of Technology (MIT) X11/X Consortium licence, often called | the "MIT licence" or "X11 licence". The X11 licence does not impose any | conditions on the modification or redistribution of either the source | code or binaries other than requiring that copyright and/or licence | notices are left intact. Now that text reads: | The main licence we use is derived from the traditional Massachusetts | Institute of Technology (MIT) X11/X Consortium licence, the Berkely [sic] | Standard [sic] Distribution (BSD) license, and the Apache 1.1 licence. | The XFree86 Project's licence does not impose any conditions on the | modification or redistribution of the source code or binaries other | than requiring that copyright and/or licence notices are left intact, | ***and that due credit is given*** [emphasis added]. Followups are being (I hope) redirected to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (there's no reason to post this junk on devel). -- Paul Vojta, [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
