I agree that people need to back up their statements.
I disagree that this topic is moot on the Fink list.
In the spirit of the Open Source Community that Fink is founded on:
http://fink.sourceforge.net/faq/general.php#what
Q1.1: What is Fink?
A: Fink wants to bring more Unix software to Mac OS X, which results in two main goals:
Goal number one is porting software to Mac OS X. That means we take commodity Open Source Unix software and fix whatever is necessary so that it will compile and run on Mac OS X. Sometimes that's easy, but it can also be very hard or even impossible for some packages. We're trying to provide tools and documentation to make this easier.
Goal number two is making the results available to casual users. For this, we build a distribution using package management tools ported over from Linux, namely dpkg and apt-get, written by and for the Debian GNU/Linux project. The binary distribution uses the .deb package format. For building packages from source, we have our own tool, named fink, which creates those .deb package files.
Most casual users do not understand the intricate specific differences between 1.) XFree86 with XDarwin "ported" to Mac OS X (which ports are packaged in packages that are released and maintained by Fink Maintainers on behalf of the casual (or not so casual user), and 2.) what Apple has released in the form of X11 which Fink has already adopted to a certain extent by offering documentation on its site: http://fink.sourceforge.net/doc/x11/inst-xfree86.php#apple-binary
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but does not Fink's "adoption" and "integration" of Apple's X11 into the Fink system *break* with Fink's tradition and *goals*: (1.) commodity Open Source Unix software, (2.) building the Fink distribution from package management tools ported over from Linux, namely dpgk and apt-get?
Why would Fink integrate something that is proprietary from Apple into what has, until now, been a non-proprietary system? But please forgive me if I'm totally misunderstanding (I read the Apple X11 license and don't see any words in the license (but I'm not a lawyer -- does Fink have any lawyers that can review the Apple X11 license?) that would 1.) allow a Fink maintainer to "fix whatever is necessary so that it will compile and run on Mac OS X" with regard to Apple's X11, and 2.) add to the Fink distribution from ... Linux (dpkg / apt-get).
What worries me the most is that XDarwin will gradually vanish in the wake of Apple's X11 which does not allow the Open Source (Fink or otherwise) community(s) to offer fixes to anything specific that Apple has done. What is the probability of this happening? Has there been any discussion about this with the kind XDarwin folks? Would it not be quite feasible for the casual users who have come to know and love (and rely on) the Open Source communities at large, to easily get swept up in the Apple X11 proprietary application and get sucked into Apple's X11, thinking that its also "Open Source" (I.e., "It must be because everyone's using it -- look, even the Fink Web pages talk about it and how Apple's X11 can integrate into Fink distributions").
Again, I am not a lawyer, but would it not perhaps be a good idea to have the Free Software Foundation (or EFF) at least take a look at this situation so that we know exactly what we're dealing with here? Who knows, perhaps in the process we'll also understand that it is that Tenon has allegedly done in the past, too.
Kind regards,
-Brendan
On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 10:29 AM, Max Horn wrote:
At 12:03 Uhr -0800 22.01.2003, lenny bruce wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 09:32 AM, Andrew Hartung wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 06:27 AM, lenny bruce wrote:
X11 on Mac OS X began as a hobby-like interest in the possibilities of OS X
that Tenon illegally hijacked with criminal racketeering so they could profit.
this guy really needs to get a dictionary.
it was a scheme, classic criminal racketeering...
* make sure you're the only one selling it
* block anybody else from giving it away
XonX did all the work and yet Tenon was selling it and XonX held it back.
Apple broke up Tenon's little scheme by making XFree86 with HW OpenGL free.
Apple was just too big to be intimidated the way Tenon did with XonX.
Somehow people refuse to see it with computer stuff...
but it's the same crime whether it's done with oil,
the right to vote, alcohol, or any other product/service.
OK, dude, now unless you can actually give hard facts and proofs for your ramblings (and I don't see how you could do so), stop this NOW. Stop accusing people for crimes when you can't prove it - in most democratic countries, doing that is a crime in itself and you can be sued for it. Even better, stop it anyway, even in the unlikely event that you can prove your statements, because this discussion really doesn't belong on this list.
Max
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Scholarships for Techies!
Can't afford IT training? All 2003 ictp students receive scholarships.
Get hands-on training in Microsoft, Cisco, Sun, Linux/UNIX, and more.
www.ictp.com/training/sourceforge.asp
_______________________________________________
Fink-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-users
