Re: License furor

At 05:53 PM 5/24/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>Dr. Rich Murphey wrote:
>>A bit of history explains what you are asking about.
>>There's a reason that a public forum is the only way to get hold of David.
>>There have been far too many people (including the self-proclaimed
>>greybeards) who simply lie on a continuing basis.  Regardless of the merits,
>>it became impossible to hold any meaningful discussions privately.
>>Add to that the fact that such people use any public statements as
>>ammunition for hidden agendas and you have the current situation.
>
>I'm admittedly no greybeard, but I'm not corporate either, nor do I have 
>anything to gain in this situation, hence noo hidden agenda.
>
>>It's simply amazing what some people will do for a development contract.
>>It's unsurprising what vendors will do under the table with such contracts.
>>In fact, vendors will tell you that the community has no right to question
>>such actions.  Don't ask too many questions about which X.org organizers or
>>developers are getting paid by which vendor when a conflict of interest
>>occurs, that's none of our business according to X.org organizers.
>>Talk is cheap in this context.  Don't trust what you hear but rather the
>>actions taken.
>>X.org is just another incarnation of a vendor consortium constructed to meet
>>vendor's needs cloaked in rhetoric about 'giving back to the community'.
>>Open source has changed.  Vendors have figured out how to buy developers and
>>subvert 'public service' for their business strategy.
>>So here we are.
>
>A lot of what I have read on the Fedora list is pointing the finger at 
>XFree86's actions.  They say that totalitarian CVS access, repeatedly 
>ignoring good programming contributions and patches, and generally trying 
>to keep stiff control of the X11 protocol caused "the fork." (Then again, 
>it seems all forks are basically over the same issue.) They say that the 
>dissolution of the core team only happened in response to "the fork," and 
>was merely for show (like you said, talk is cheap). They say that 
>XFree86's actions repeatedly show that they are trying to make the project 
>progressively less open, and the license is just another sign of 
>that.  Just thought I'd put forth a little balance on the wobbly table here.


man, i think that you're spreading fud.  a quick check of the archives 
don't show anything like that.
i think you're over-reacting.

mark.