Re: License issues

At 06:52 PM 3/10/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:56:59AM -0500, mark kandianis wrote:
> > At 04:53 PM 3/10/2004 +0100, you wrote:
> > >On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:36:09AM -0500, mark kandianis wrote:
> > >> 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?
> > >
> > >Based on the licence audit Branden did. I don't remember all of it, and
> > >GLX is indeed problematic,
> >
> > so is debian fixing that?  and removing it from the foundation code base
> > before it ships it?  and why didn't debian notice this before?  asleep at
> > the wheel?
>
>Mark, why are you taking this agressive tone. Yes, it will be fixed in
>debian, and Branden has been looking over these issues, altough in the
>X.org framework. But you have to know that i am not on nice speaking
>basis with Branden.


because you are a johnny-one-note and it's beginning to pall man.
i think i'm going to take jens' advice and move on.  you're right man, this is
giving me bad karma. sorry if i bothered you sven, you've got your own space
to work out,  but you're slowly becoming that no man's island
of Atlantis and that's a bad scene.

i'm outta here man.  peace and brotherhood sven,  especially peace ;-)

mark.