RE: license discussions

At 04:03 PM 4/4/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 15:26, Dr. Rich Murphey wrote:
>
> >
> > Any impression that a vendor consortium will be a public servant will 
> almost
> > certainly change with time.  We've been there before.  He who does not 
> learn
> > from history is doomed to repeat it.
>
>Exactly.  Some people learn from history, and some do not.
>
>This is why the X.org Foundation is *not* a vendor
>consortium, (despite the similarity of name to the predecessor
>organization, which was an industry consortium),
>and is an open membership organization,
>where anyone who contributes has say in its governance.
>
>In contrast, XFree86 has governance with no say from anyone
>whatsoever except its board, which is self perpetuating, and
>composed mostly of people who are no longer active contributors
>to the X Window System.

http://www.x.org/XOrg_Foundation_Board.html

well now i see what alex was hinting at by saying that gpl compatibility
is politically motivated.  obviously the fsf's self-interest was to make
the new license a political issue and push their X and the foundation
instead i.e. xfree86 1.1 is GPL incompatible.

thanks jim for pointing that out.  i really missed that in alex's
note.

in the meanwhile, looks like a lot of those 'board' members on the foundation
are still posting on this defunct devel list.  there something there that 
makes no
sense.  and then there are people on your board i haven't a clue, other than
their posts as to what they've done for free software...who the hell is 
leon shiman
and what free software has he given the community?  the fsf rep i just know as
a public flak who writes for the linux magazine, that's not really free 
software
by any stretch of the imagination.  stuart anderson does standards?  well xfree
creates them.  mattaic ettrich?  don't know him at him.  you are jim getty's
an o'reilly author, not much there to brag about.  georg is a writer.  alan 
does
xfree86.  stuart kreitman?  what's he done?  kevin martin?  xfree86.  jim?
does that even do x?  leon?  and what the freak is code weavers?

seems to me jim you're cherry picking here.  while i would agree that not all
of xfree86's bod is actively coding, i would say that they are actively leading
not writing, not pontificating but hacking man.  hacking.

http://www.xfree86.org/legal/bod.html

alex, good catch.

mark.