RE: Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of mark kandianis
> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 1:34 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [forum] 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?

Lack of funds from vendors as far as I know.

Rich