Re: Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Paul Vojta wrote:

> > >What about, ``others (e.g., X.org) are forking the code as a result of
> > >these changes''?

> > Others had already forked the code for mostly political or "business"
> > reasons.  So what is your point?

> Who are these others, how major are they, and how major were they prior
> to their fork?  I don't know of any offhand, and I suspect that they are
> either very minor players or are commerical entities.

> Another post to this list indicates that OpenBSD, Mandrake, Debian, and
> X.org are not going along with the new license.  These are *major players*
> in X.

> So, my point is, forking is bad.  Rightly or otherwise, this license change
> is causing forking of an order of magnitude worse than has occurred in the
> past, and this should be taken very seriously in deciding whether to continue
> with the license change.

> As they say in business, ``the customer is always right.''

Bingo!  About time somebody woke up.  XFree86 is _not_ a customer-oriented
organisation.  It is developer-oriented.  That business models have been
based on XFree86 is _their_ problem, not ours.

Marc.

+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|  Marc Aurele La France           |  work:   1-780-492-9310           |
|  Computing and Network Services  |  fax:    1-780-492-1729           |
|  352 General Services Building   |  email:  [email protected]          |
|  University of Alberta           +-----------------------------------+
|  Edmonton, Alberta               |                                   |
|  T6G 2H1                         |     Standard disclaimers apply    |
|  CANADA                          |                                   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
XFree86 developer and VP.  ATI driver and X server internals.