RE: license discussions

On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 17:15, Mark Vojkovich wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004, Jim Gettys 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.
> 
>  I believe that the X.org foundation will eventually be a vendor
> consortium.  Some of the vendors have too much at stake and
> I have seen the pressure they have put on the XFree86 project.
> The X.org foundation will either come under attack as XFree86
> has, with complaints of it not serving its constituents, or it
> will turn into a vendor driven organization.  I predict the
> later.

I'm sorry you believe this Mark.  You can help ensure it
doesn't happen by your involvement; this is why the new
organization's governance is by individual contributors,
and *not* by companies.

You have no idea how much I have regretted the
founding of the X Consortium over the last decade.  
If I believed that this course would repeat itself, 
I'd have nothing to do with the X.org Foundation.

> 
>  You can call me cynical, but I even believe that there are
> people associated with the creation of the X.org foundation
> who know this, and that this is all just a guise to come up
> with a vendor driven organization with a better public image.
> 
> 

I had some such fears in the beginning, but over the last 9
months, I no longer have this worry. 
                        - Jim



-- 
Jim Gettys <[email protected]>
HP Labs, Cambridge Research Laboratory