On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 05:22:19PM +0100, cube@cubidou.net wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 10:00:53AM -0600, Richard Rauch wrote:
> > After reading the rants on slashdot, *yes* they are griping about a BSD
> > style license.  I've read the license, and don't see anything at all
> > objectionable about it.  It seems like a simple, standard BSD license
> > (with the "advertising clause").
> 
> Why are we here arguing over a non-issue?  Why should we care because

I wasn't aware that we were arguing.  For the record, I have never
particularly cared which of the two XFree86 licenses is used where.


 [...interrim deleted...]
> > might be an issue for binary packages.  I'm not entirely clear that
 [...]
> But it's not an issue since the new license doesn't apply to XFree86
> libraries.  Problem solved, let's move on to something else.

I wasn't aware that that was changed/clarified.  I thought that the
new license applied to the whole XFree86 system.

Thanks for the clarification.  On to something more interesting, then.


-- 
  "I probably don't know what I'm talking about."  http://www.olib.org/~rkr/