On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 07:43:36AM +0000, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > On 2007-12-13, Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Further, note that my initial commit tried to do this, and I asked the > > author if it was acceptable. It was clear from his reply that it was > > not -- especially considering the following history: > > It seemed acceptable wrt. the source package; I was querying the > effect on binary packages.
It would have prevented binary packages. > Also read again what I have written about the Xinerama module. > Why is it not a separate package? What is it disguised as part > of Ion, when it is not? ion-3 is deleted -- both in source form, and in binary package form -- so the point is moot. Even without the Xinerama code, I don't see how we could have met your 'no modifications' clause and still have ion-3 be able to run on FreeBSD. In fact, I don't see how any packaging system can meet that standard. Perhaps you can tell me where I'm wrong here. My conclusions from your interactions with Debian + Gentoo + ArchLinux + pkgsrc + OpenBSD is that it is not possible for us to meet your objections in a timely fashion for this release. Apparently only Debian felt like they could meet your objections, even in absence of a deadline; the others either deleted it, or, in the case of OpenBSD, stayed with an older version that predates these licensing clauses. I haven't investigated the state of ion-3 with respect to any other major Linux distributions; the above seem to me to be a representative enough sample. Of course, I'm puzzled why the deletion of ion-3 wasn't enough to end this discussion. I myself have no further interest in discussing it. mcl _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"