Re: License issues

At 09:38 PM 3/9/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:55:05AM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:16:37PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > >And now, you are openly lying to us, trying to say that there is no
> > >change, that this licence has always been the XFree86 licence, which is
> > >clearly false, and contrary to what everyone has been lead to believe
> >
> > I think you need to read what is written, rather than overreacting
> > to everything.
>
>Maybe i am overreacting, but i think that the claims that everything is
>fine, and has ever been such is still a lie. The licence change is not a
>good move, and it will only cause problems in the long run. Still it is
>your right to do so, but trying to deny that the practice did actually
>change is just cowardly hiding from your responsabilities in this issue.
>
>You well know that i have always been on your side on this and past
>issues, so, please let's at least be honest among ourselves.
>
> > The licensing *policy* has not changed.  XFree86 has exercised the
> > same freedom of licensing choice that it has been offering its
> > contributors for some time.  This is no secret, since there have
> > been MIT/X11 and GPL-incompatible licences published in our
> > LICENCE/COPYRIGHT docs for many years.  If people don't actually
> > go and read those details, then what does that say about the
> > importance they give to the licences?
>
>Well, but there is a difference. Those problematic files are rather
>minor, and a solution can be found.


big big change.  how cum?  why do you say that?  based on what
o troll master?

mark.