Fwd: Re: X.Org Foundation - Conference Call Minutes - 1st April 2004

>Resent-Date: 5 Apr 2004 12:59:28 -0000
>Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 14:59:02 +0200
>From: Egbert Eich <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Cc: Alan Coopersmith <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: X.Org Foundation - Conference Call Minutes - 1st April 2004
>X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under Emacs 21.2.1
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham 
>version=2.63
>Resent-To: [email protected]
>Resent-From: [email protected]
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>X-Mailing-List: xorg_foundation:archive/latest/369
>X-Loop: [email protected]
>Resent-Sender: [email protected]
>
>Mark W. Snitily writes:
>  > > We should keep the facts straight here. The 6.6 merger was done
>  > > by XFree86 well before 4.3 came out. About anything from the
>  > > sample implementation that was done after 6.6 and hasn't been
>  > > part of XFree86 already has been reverted before the release
>  > > as it introduced unjustifiable backward incompatibilities.
>  >
>  > Wrong.(!)  Egbert, you must not be aware of how much time and
>  > money the old X.Org spent on helping to improve XFree86.  I
>  > spent *all* of 2002 working on X.Org bug fixes and enhancements
>  > that were fed into the then current X11R6.6.x and the then
>  > current XFree86 4.x.  The X11R6.6 "merge" was done long before
>  > all of this work.  There were many bug fixes and improvements
>  > provided to XFree86 by the old X.Org after the X11R6.6 "merge."
>  > That is why I wrote "In a way this really was a merger, ..."
>  > I stand by my above words.
>
>The code of XFree86 is collection of various people's effords.
>You, Alan, Keith, Jim, Kaleb, me and a lot of others have been
>part of this.
>That's why I don't buy the stupid argument that "X.Org people
>don't create code but can only 'steal' it from XFree86" the
>usual flame war solicitors try to make people believe on various
>XFree86 mailing lists.
>
>Egbert.


he forgets the stupidity of the license debate.  very convenient.

mark.