Re: Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

At 12:12 PM 2/23/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>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.


and keep it pure ;-)

Committed by: kaleb

Update of /cvs/xorg/xc
In directory pdx:/home/kaleb/xfree86/xc

Log Message:
Import most of XFree86 4.4RC3.
This import excludes files which have the new license.
If we want to, later we can import 4.4RC3 again and pick up the files
that have the new license, but for now the vendor branch is "pure."

mark.