Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3
"Kaleb S. KEITHLEY" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.xfree86.forum |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dr. Rich Murphey writes: > [snip] > X.org forked XFree86. It's fascinating that > the word 'fork' has become such a taboo. > [snip] Why do you think it has become taboo? Everyone seems to be glossing over the fact that XFree86 forked the MIT/XC tree first, many years ago. Bob created the technology and licensed it in a way that people and organizations like XFree86 (and others) COULD fork it. Forking the tree wasn't taboo when XFree86 did it, and I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with it now -- whether it's Xouvert, Keith and Jim's modularized-and-autotooled fork, or the X.org Foundation's monolithic tree. XFree86 and MIT/XC/XPT worked together very amiably for a long time. I'd really like to understand why this no longer seems possible. I think the people involved with XFree86 should be flattered that the X.org Foundation has chosen a recent snapshot of XFree86's tree as a starting point. XFree86 started by forking the MIT tree: so whose tree is it? -- Kaleb S. KEITHLEY