Re: xfree86 4.4.0

2004-07-05 Thread David Fokkema
On Mon, Jul 05, 2004 at 11:33:55AM -0400, Chris Metzler wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 20:13:17 +0200
> David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I (think I) have read the previous thread about the license change, but
> > probably not good enough. Would someone care to explain to me what
> > exactly is the fuss about the license change? I understand that XFree86
> > has the exception that you cannot "claim that you wrote it", right? Why
> > does that make XFree86 non-DFSG compliant?
> 
> I'm not sufficiently comfortable with my knowledge of the DFSG to
> argue why the new XF86 license is not considered to be DFSG-compliant.
> For that, I'd recommend checking the archives of the debian-legal
> mailing list.  This was discussed in great detail over a period of
> several months there.
> 
> In general, the claim has *not* been that the new license change makes
> XFree86 non-free.  The claim has been that the new license change
> makes XFree86 incompatible with the GPL.  Those two statements are not
> the same:  at
> 
> http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html
> 
> you'll find a long list of licenses which the FSF thinks are free
> software licenses, but some of which are not compatible with the GPL.
> Note that I am not, myself, saying that the new XFree86 license is
> incompatible with the GPL (I feel too ignorant of the details of
> things to say); I'm merely repeating that that's what the objection
> to it is.

Ah!

> Why does this matter?  It matters when you take a module which is
> covered by a license that isn't compatible with the GPL, and create
> a larger chunk-o-software by combining it with a module that's
> covered by the GPL.  How do you license that new application in a
> way that doesn't violate the terms of one of the component licenses?
> For example, the claim is made that under the terms of the new
> XFree86 license, any Linux distribution that built and distributed
> GNOME would effectively be breaking copyright law, since either
> the XFree86 license or the GPL would have to be violated in so
> doing.
> 
> In other words (to summarize), it's not that some people think the new
> XFree86 license makes it no longer free software; it's that some people
> think that the new XFree86 license creates legal issues when linked
> with the GPL'd software packages (e.g. libraries) that predominate in
> Linux distributions.
> 
> Not surprisingly, the XFree86 folks (e.g. project leader David Dawes)
> disagree with this assessment of things.  Since the lawyers with FSF
> (e.g. Eben Moglen of Columbia University) assert that there *is* a
> problem, I tend to suspect the FSF is correct; but IANAL.  But the
> XFree86 folks also make the argument that there are other common
> components of the typical Linux distribution that should cause
> similar complaints about incompatible licensing, if that's really what
> the problem is.
> 
> So that's the licensing bit.  Some people (both for *and* against
> dumping XFree86) feel that the real issues here are long-standing
> complaints against the XFree86 Organization and how it's managed,
> how new patches/updates are or are not considered, etc., and that
> the licensing issues are either a smokescreen or the straw that
> broke the camel's back.  Again, you'll have to make up your own
> mind about that point of view.

Thanks! That clears up a lot. Now I understand why there can be
licensing issues while XFree86 can still be free.

David

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus. Copy me into
your ~/.signature to help me spread!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: xfree86 4.4.0

2004-07-05 Thread Chris Metzler
On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 20:13:17 +0200
David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I (think I) have read the previous thread about the license change, but
> probably not good enough. Would someone care to explain to me what
> exactly is the fuss about the license change? I understand that XFree86
> has the exception that you cannot "claim that you wrote it", right? Why
> does that make XFree86 non-DFSG compliant?

I'm not sufficiently comfortable with my knowledge of the DFSG to
argue why the new XF86 license is not considered to be DFSG-compliant.
For that, I'd recommend checking the archives of the debian-legal
mailing list.  This was discussed in great detail over a period of
several months there.

In general, the claim has *not* been that the new license change makes
XFree86 non-free.  The claim has been that the new license change
makes XFree86 incompatible with the GPL.  Those two statements are not
the same:  at

http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html

you'll find a long list of licenses which the FSF thinks are free
software licenses, but some of which are not compatible with the GPL.
Note that I am not, myself, saying that the new XFree86 license is
incompatible with the GPL (I feel too ignorant of the details of
things to say); I'm merely repeating that that's what the objection
to it is.

Why does this matter?  It matters when you take a module which is
covered by a license that isn't compatible with the GPL, and create
a larger chunk-o-software by combining it with a module that's
covered by the GPL.  How do you license that new application in a
way that doesn't violate the terms of one of the component licenses?
For example, the claim is made that under the terms of the new
XFree86 license, any Linux distribution that built and distributed
GNOME would effectively be breaking copyright law, since either
the XFree86 license or the GPL would have to be violated in so
doing.

In other words (to summarize), it's not that some people think the new
XFree86 license makes it no longer free software; it's that some people
think that the new XFree86 license creates legal issues when linked
with the GPL'd software packages (e.g. libraries) that predominate in
Linux distributions.

Not surprisingly, the XFree86 folks (e.g. project leader David Dawes)
disagree with this assessment of things.  Since the lawyers with FSF
(e.g. Eben Moglen of Columbia University) assert that there *is* a
problem, I tend to suspect the FSF is correct; but IANAL.  But the
XFree86 folks also make the argument that there are other common
components of the typical Linux distribution that should cause
similar complaints about incompatible licensing, if that's really what
the problem is.

So that's the licensing bit.  Some people (both for *and* against
dumping XFree86) feel that the real issues here are long-standing
complaints against the XFree86 Organization and how it's managed,
how new patches/updates are or are not considered, etc., and that
the licensing issues are either a smokescreen or the straw that
broke the camel's back.  Again, you'll have to make up your own
mind about that point of view.

-c


-- 
Chris Metzler   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove "snip-me." to email)

"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear


pgp2YkM45M8ES.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: xfree86 4.4.0

2004-07-05 Thread Chris Metzler
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 00:39:37 -
Thomas Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> essentially it demands equal treatment - the notion of which is repugant
> to some people

While (as posts of mine in this list will demonstrate) I'm no big
fan of Slashdot, it's easy to see why you don't like it.  From your
perspective, one thing this list has going for it that Slashdot
doesn't is that there's no opportunity to moderate posts as "Troll,"
which is just about all you seem to be doing in this thread.

Fortunately, that's easily handled at the user-mailreader end.
Goodbye.

-c

-- 
Chris Metzler   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove "snip-me." to email)

"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear


pgpeVmtMcVxQl.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: xfree86 4.4.0 vs. XOrg?

2004-07-05 Thread John Muller
Thomas Dickey wrote:
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--=-=-=

Thomas Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

--- Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 


So is XOrg driver-compatible with xfree86?
What do you mean by "driver compatible"? The changes made are to the
modular tree (as you've read by that link). Can you be more specific, or
elaborate.

Will XF86 modules, like nVidia's vendor-supplied ones, likely to work
with XOrg?  Are we looking at something that is a drop-in replacement
for XFree86 or an entirely different model?

since XOrg is (in the server area) simply a copy of XFree86, it's likely
that would work (for a while).
I had no problems installing nvidia drivers on a FC2 box, which installs 
xorg by default, so you shouldnt have any problems now and i doubt that 
the xorg team will remove the compatibility ...

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: xfree86 4.4.0

2004-07-04 Thread Thomas Dickey
Micha Feigin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Look for more detail in my other post, but essentially they also
> require you now to acknowledge their contribution along with any
> acknowledgment to other software distributed with it.

essentially it demands equal treatment - the notion of which is repugant to
some people

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: xfree86 4.4.0

2004-07-04 Thread Kent West
Thomas Dickey wrote:
Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 

Yes, that is correct.  XFree86 changed their copyright recently and it
is no longer free.  The major distros have dropped it due to the new
licensing restrictions.  This is not a Debian specific.  Here are some
slashdot articles on it.
   

citing slashdot articles is only interesting to morons.
(slashdotters are that, granted, but why follow it?)
 

Thanks for calling me a moron. Debian-User had this discussion a few 
weeks/months ago, so I won't say anything more.

--
Kent
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: xfree86 4.4.0

2004-07-04 Thread Thomas Dickey
Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Yes, that is correct.  XFree86 changed their copyright recently and it
> is no longer free.  The major distros have dropped it due to the new
> licensing restrictions.  This is not a Debian specific.  Here are some
> slashdot articles on it.

citing slashdot articles is only interesting to morons.

(slashdotters are that, granted, but why follow it?)

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: xfree86 4.4.0

2004-07-04 Thread Micha Feigin
On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 08:13:17PM +0200, David Fokkema wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 11:13:52AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> > jack kinnon wrote:
> > > I'm not familiar with those licencing stuff. Does it
> > > mean that future software fr xfree86 will no more be
> > > free?
> > 
> > Yes, that is correct.  XFree86 changed their copyright recently and it
> > is no longer free.  The major distros have dropped it due to the new
> > licensing restrictions.  This is not a Debian specific.  Here are some
> > slashdot articles on it.
> > 
> >   http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/02/18/131223.shtml?tid=104
> >   
> > http://slashdot.org/articles/04/03/17/226216.shtml?tid=104&tid=110&tid=152&tid=185&tid=187&tid=189
> 
> I (think I) have read the previous thread about the license change, but
> probably not good enough. Would someone care to explain to me what
> exactly is the fuss about the license change? I understand that XFree86
> has the exception that you cannot "claim that you wrote it", right? Why
> does that make XFree86 non-DFSG compliant?
> 

Look for more detail in my other post, but essentially they also
require you now to acknowledge their contribution along with any
acknowledgment to other software distributed with it.

I would guess that could imply to mean that distributions having a
splash screen of whatever of the distribution in the setup, or wherever
else, and that also distribute Xfree would have to provide a splash
screen for X in the setup (or wherever else that appears).

> Thanks,
> 
> David
> 
> -- 
> Hi! I'm a .signature virus. Copy me into
> your ~/.signature to help me spread!
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>  
>  +++
>  This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System
>  at the Tel-Aviv University CC.
> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: xfree86 4.4.0

2004-07-04 Thread Micha Feigin
On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 07:07:41AM -0700, jack kinnon wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm not familiar with those licencing stuff. Does it
> mean that future software fr xfree86 will no more be
> free?
> 

Xfree86 is still free and you can download the source at
www.xfree86.org.

I am not sure exactly what the problem with the license is but the main
point of it is:

So the new license, unlike the old one, explicitly requires that the
copyright holders and its contributors, are to be acknowledged in the
end user documentation that accompanies redistribution, i.e. the binary
only redistributions. The original problem has now been solved.

Its probably a question of when distributing X with the installation
cd, that its somewhat hard to start acknowledging the authors of
contained programs, but not sure.

A FAQ about the license is at:
http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licenses.html

The new license require acknowledgment along with all others responsible
for the software (which in this case would be the distribution) also
when the code is distributed in binary form instead of a previous
ambiguity which could have been interpreted as software form only.

My guess is that distributions are waiting to see where things settle
with the new license and decide whether to continue with xfree86 or
move to X..org

Considering projects such as dri are moving to X.org I think that will
be the direction, but don't take my word for it ;-)

> I have tried to search apt-get.org but it doesn't seem
> to work. It can't find even Debian packages I am
> currently using.
> 
> Looks like I have to stick with 4.3.0 for the moment.
> How do I set the DPI? Can't do it thro' XF86Config-4.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> 
>   
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>  
>  +++
>  This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System
>  at the Tel-Aviv University CC.
> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: xfree86 4.4.0

2004-07-04 Thread David Fokkema
On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 11:13:52AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> jack kinnon wrote:
> > I'm not familiar with those licencing stuff. Does it
> > mean that future software fr xfree86 will no more be
> > free?
> 
> Yes, that is correct.  XFree86 changed their copyright recently and it
> is no longer free.  The major distros have dropped it due to the new
> licensing restrictions.  This is not a Debian specific.  Here are some
> slashdot articles on it.
> 
>   http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/02/18/131223.shtml?tid=104
>   
> http://slashdot.org/articles/04/03/17/226216.shtml?tid=104&tid=110&tid=152&tid=185&tid=187&tid=189

I (think I) have read the previous thread about the license change, but
probably not good enough. Would someone care to explain to me what
exactly is the fuss about the license change? I understand that XFree86
has the exception that you cannot "claim that you wrote it", right? Why
does that make XFree86 non-DFSG compliant?

Thanks,

David

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus. Copy me into
your ~/.signature to help me spread!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: xfree86 4.4.0

2004-07-04 Thread Bob Proulx
jack kinnon wrote:
> I'm not familiar with those licencing stuff. Does it
> mean that future software fr xfree86 will no more be
> free?

Yes, that is correct.  XFree86 changed their copyright recently and it
is no longer free.  The major distros have dropped it due to the new
licensing restrictions.  This is not a Debian specific.  Here are some
slashdot articles on it.

  http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/02/18/131223.shtml?tid=104
  
http://slashdot.org/articles/04/03/17/226216.shtml?tid=104&tid=110&tid=152&tid=185&tid=187&tid=189

Bob


pgpzfS59NXByN.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: xfree86 4.4.0

2004-07-04 Thread Carl Fink
On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 07:07:41AM -0700, jack kinnon wrote:

> I have tried to search apt-get.org but it doesn't seem
> to work. It can't find even Debian packages I am
> currently using.

Apt-get.org is specifically for NON-STANDARD debs, that is, for
things that aren't in the current release structure.  (Sometimes that
means packages that are in Unstable but not Stable, sometimes it's
packages that are in neither, for instance for licensing reasons.)
-- 
Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabootu's Minister of Proofreading
http://www.jabootu.com


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: xfree86 4.4.0

2004-07-04 Thread jack kinnon
Hi,
I'm not familiar with those licencing stuff. Does it
mean that future software fr xfree86 will no more be
free?

I have tried to search apt-get.org but it doesn't seem
to work. It can't find even Debian packages I am
currently using.

Looks like I have to stick with 4.3.0 for the moment.
How do I set the DPI? Can't do it thro' XF86Config-4.


Cheers




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: xfree86 4.4.0 vs. XOrg?

2004-07-04 Thread Thomas Dickey
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --=-=-=

> Thomas Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> --- Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
>>
>>> So is XOrg driver-compatible with xfree86?
>>
>> What do you mean by "driver compatible"? The changes made are to the
>> modular tree (as you've read by that link). Can you be more specific, or
>> elaborate.

> Will XF86 modules, like nVidia's vendor-supplied ones, likely to work
> with XOrg?  Are we looking at something that is a drop-in replacement
> for XFree86 or an entirely different model?

since XOrg is (in the server area) simply a copy of XFree86, it's likely
that would work (for a while).

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: xfree86 4.4.0

2004-07-04 Thread Thomas Dickey
Micha Feigin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 03:50:01PM -, Thomas Dickey wrote:
>> Micha Feigin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>> > If I am not mistaken the X version in debian, despite being 4.3 is more
>> > in the direction of a pre version of 4.4 (just before the license
>> > change).
>> 
>> no judging by the bug-reports.  It's 4.3

> If I am not mistaken its 4.3.99.12, I know its not 4 but IIRC its an
> experimental release on its way there.

but look at the dates on the changelog - 4.3.99.12 is September 10 2003.
That's changelog #437.  The XOrg release iirc is a copy of 4.3.99.903
(changelog #805, 15 February 2004).  It also tacks in an unstable
version of FreeType (have to add some value, I suppose ;-).

> Don't recall at what stage the new license was introduced though.

That's 4.4 release (29 February).

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: xfree86 4.4.0 vs. XOrg?

2004-07-03 Thread Paul Johnson
Thomas Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> --- Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
>
>> So is XOrg driver-compatible with xfree86?
>
> What do you mean by "driver compatible"? The changes made are to the
> modular tree (as you've read by that link). Can you be more specific, or
> elaborate.

Will XF86 modules, like nVidia's vendor-supplied ones, likely to work
with XOrg?  Are we looking at something that is a drop-in replacement
for XFree86 or an entirely different model?

-- 
Paul Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


pgpjG7265Yr4P.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: xfree86 4.4.0 vs. XOrg?

2004-07-03 Thread Thomas Adam
--- Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

> So is XOrg driver-compatible with xfree86?

What do you mean by "driver compatible"? The changes made are to the
modular tree (as you've read by that link). Can you be more specific, or
elaborate.

-- Thomas Adam

=
"The Linux Weekend Mechanic" -- http://linuxgazette.net
"TAG Editor" -- http://linuxgazette.net

" We'll just save up your sins, Thomas, and punish 
you for all of them at once when you get better. The 
experience will probably kill you. :)"

 -- Benjamin A. Okopnik (Linux Gazette Technical Editor)





___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - 
so many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



xfree86 4.4.0 vs. XOrg?

2004-07-03 Thread Paul Johnson
Thomas Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> --- jack kinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
>> Hi folks,
>>  Is Xfree86 4.4.0 available for Debian stable? If so,
>>   how do I download a copy?
>
> Read this:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/debian-x-200403/msg03376.html (and
> follow-ups)

So is XOrg driver-compatible with xfree86?

-- 
Paul Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


pgpHcf8cFzpuo.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: xfree86 4.4.0

2004-07-03 Thread Micha Feigin
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 03:50:01PM -, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> Micha Feigin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > If I am not mistaken the X version in debian, despite being 4.3 is more
> > in the direction of a pre version of 4.4 (just before the license
> > change).
> 
> no judging by the bug-reports.  It's 4.3

If I am not mistaken its 4.3.99.12, I know its not 4 but IIRC its an
experimental release on its way there.

Don't recall at what stage the new license was introduced though.

> 
> -- 
> Thomas E. Dickey
> http://invisible-island.net
> ftp://invisible-island.net
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>  
>  +++
>  This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System
>  at the Tel-Aviv University CC.
> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: xfree86 4.4.0

2004-07-03 Thread Thomas Dickey
Micha Feigin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> If I am not mistaken the X version in debian, despite being 4.3 is more
> in the direction of a pre version of 4.4 (just before the license
> change).

no judging by the bug-reports.  It's 4.3

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: xfree86 4.4.0

2004-07-03 Thread Micha Feigin
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 10:55:27AM +0200, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> On fredag 2. juli 2004, 15:24, jack kinnon wrote:
> >  Is Xfree86 4.4.0 available for Debian stable?
> 
> Apart from that 4.4.0 has license problems and will probably not go into 
> Debian in any form, the answer to such question is usually a search on 
> apt-get.org. If you can't find it there, the answer is most likely 
> "no" :-) 
> 

If I am not mistaken the X version in debian, despite being 4.3 is more
in the direction of a pre version of 4.4 (just before the license
change).

My guess is that at the moment most distributions are checking where
the wind blows and will probably switch to the X.org server instead of
xfree86 in some time (hopefully before too long).

> Cheers,
> 
> Kjetil
> -- 
> Kjetil Kjernsmo
> Astrophysicist/IT Consultant/Skeptic/Ski-orienteer/Orienteer/Mountaineer
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Homepage: http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/OpenPGP KeyID: 6A6A0BBC
> 
> 
>  +++
>  This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System
>  at the Tel-Aviv University CC.
> 



Re: xfree86 4.4.0

2004-07-03 Thread Kjetil Kjernsmo
On fredag 2. juli 2004, 15:24, jack kinnon wrote:
>  Is Xfree86 4.4.0 available for Debian stable?

Apart from that 4.4.0 has license problems and will probably not go into 
Debian in any form, the answer to such question is usually a search on 
apt-get.org. If you can't find it there, the answer is most likely 
"no" :-) 

Cheers,

Kjetil
-- 
Kjetil Kjernsmo
Astrophysicist/IT Consultant/Skeptic/Ski-orienteer/Orienteer/Mountaineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/OpenPGP KeyID: 6A6A0BBC



Re: xfree86 4.4.0

2004-07-02 Thread Thomas Adam
--- jack kinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> Hi folks,
>  Is Xfree86 4.4.0 available for Debian stable? If so,
>   how do I download a copy?

Read this:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/debian-x-200403/msg03376.html (and
follow-ups)

-- Thomas Adam

=
"The Linux Weekend Mechanic" -- http://linuxgazette.net
"TAG Editor" -- http://linuxgazette.net

" We'll just save up your sins, Thomas, and punish 
you for all of them at once when you get better. The 
experience will probably kill you. :)"

 -- Benjamin A. Okopnik (Linux Gazette Technical Editor)





___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - 
so many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



xfree86 4.4.0

2004-07-02 Thread jack kinnon
Hi folks,
 Is Xfree86 4.4.0 available for Debian stable? If so,
  how do I download a copy?

Cheers




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]