Re: License furor

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 11:46:56PM -0400, William M. Quarles wrote:
> Paul Vojta wrote:
> >On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 08:19:59PM -0400, mark kandianis wrote:
> >>At 06:39 PM 5/24/2004 -0400, you wrote:
> >>found it man.
> >>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2004-May/msg05005.html
> >
> >OK, so I looked there, and read through a lot of messages, consisting 
> >mostly
> >of a lot of back-and-forth of the same low quality as you see in this 
> >mailing
> >list (present company excluded, of course :-)).
> >
> >I think references to "the man" might be a little too obscure for at least
> >some people on this list.  If you're saying that x.org is too strongly
> >tied to corporate interests, then please point me to where in that thread
> >you drew that conclusion from.  As I see it, the thread (very slowly)
> >confirms my preference for x.org over xfree86.
> >
> 
> You might want to be read some of the other messages in this thread. 

I have.  Are you referring to the incorrect accusations on x.org's
supposed hypocrisy, or the unsubstantiated innuendo about x.org's
behavior "to get a development contract"?

Anything other than the fact that they don't like the XF86 1.1 license?

> I've quoted several times an article from The Inquirer on both this 
> thread and the one on the Fedora list, and someone else explained quite 
> feverently what the problem is with X.org.

I've reread this thread just now, and I don't see the Inquirer mentioned
at all.  In fact, "grep -i inquir 2004-May.txt" doesn't find anything either.

-- 
Paul Vojta, [email protected]