RE: Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

Kaleb S. KEITHLEY writes:
> 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?

You must have missed most of the X.org and forum discussions if you haven't
noticed the way in which the word fork was used sparingly.

> 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?

Well, gosh, I think that's obvious at this point.

Rich