RE: Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

At 03:00 AM 2/22/2004 -0600, you wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> > Of Alan Coopersmith
> > Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 1:56 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [forum] Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3
> >
> > Dr. Rich Murphey wrote:
> > > If your main concern is forking, you should be talking to those that are
> > > forking.  Talk to X.org and let us know how it goes!
> >
> > X.org is not really "forking" - it's simply that as has been done several
> > times in the past since XFree86 originally forked from X.org, X.org was
> > bringing the latest XFree86 changes back into the X.org tree.  This was
> > being done on a new public CVS tree on freedesktop.org that was pulling
> > over automatically from the XFree86 CVS.  The "fork" was simply that the
> > cron jobs doing so were stopped when the license changed until X.org has
> > a chance to decide whether or not code under the new license should be
> > incorporated.  I'm sure the XFree86 Board expected everyone using their
> > code to stop and take a look at the new license before pulling in code
> > using it - if nothing else, to understand what the new requirements were
> > and determine if they were meeting them or wanted to meet them.
> >
> > Anyone who wants to know what X.org is doing can join the new open mailing
> > lists at http://www.x.org/XOrg_Foundation.html or view the new public CVS
> > at http://www.freedesktop.org/Software/xorg
> >
> > --
> >       -Alan Coopersmith-          [email protected]
> >       Sun Microsystems, Inc. -- Operating Platforms Group
> >       Solaris x86 & Interface Technology: X Window System
> >
>
>
>Yes, the license change is surely a major concern.
>
>But the license change did not determine whether a fork occurred.  The
>license change didn't exist when the fork occurred.  It's quite impossible
>to reason about causes of the fork in relation to influences that didn't
>exist at the time.
>
>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.
>
>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.


cuz i am poor at history,  how cum x consortium died?  was there a reason
given at the time or no?

mark?