RE: Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3
"Dr. Rich Murphey" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.xfree86.forum |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Alan Coopersmith writes: > Dr. Rich Murphey wrote: X.org abandoned its > > code base and adopted the whole XFree86 > > code base, and did so prior to the > > license change. Perhaps there's a better > > description than 'fork' but I can't think > > of it. > > If you look at the CVS trees, they start > with X11R6.6 and then merge in changes from > XFree86. The old code base wasn't > abandoned, but XFree86 was mostly a > superset of it, so you end up at pretty > much the same place. Yes, that's a good technical description of the way in which the SI was abandoned in favor of the latest XFree86 release. > In any case, I think we're both trying to > say that the original description of what > X.org is doing forking because of license > concerns isn't correct. X.org and it's > various previous incarnations have > maintained a separate fork for years, and > haven't started a new one just to deal with > the license concerns. Here's how I'd look at it. XC folded for lack of vendor support. X.org was created to hold the assets (eg. the SI). X.org abandoned the SI and forked XFree86. > > X.org didn't exist for many years after > > XFree86 started. You probably mean the X > > consortium, which was a completely > > separate organization that closed many > > years ago. > > Right - I was using the term generically to > refer to the organizations that owned the > X.org domain and was responsible for the > X11R6.x releases - it was easier than > saying "MIT, MIT X Consortium, X > Consortium, The Open Group, X.org Group, > and now X.org Foundation." > > -- > -Alan Coopersmith- [email protected] > Sun Microsystems, Inc. -- Operating Platforms Group > Solaris x86 & Interface Technology: X Window System You're suggesting that X.org is a continuation of vendor consortiums. I can't respond to that without completely digressing. X.org forked XFree86. It's fascinating that the word 'fork' has become such a taboo. You raise some very clear points, and I don't mean to diminish them. Rich