Re: Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:

> 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

   I don't see what the big deal with forking is either.  If
a commercial interest group like X.org finds that the XFree86 
tree doesn't meet their needs, they should fork it.


			Mark.