Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 07:47:59 +0200, Carlo Calica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nah. XFree86 was stagnating for awhile before the fork. X > > development exploded after the fork which is why no one (almost) uses > > XFree86 anymore. > > That's not what I've read. In short I thought it was something like this: > Xfree86 devs decided that they wanted to change the license. [...]
To me, reading debian-legal and FSFE friends lists at the time, it looked like a bit of both. XFree86 was losing developers for a while, so there was talent available to X.org, and X-Oz's licence people appeared to both talk rubbish and refuse to deal with simple concerns, such as jurisdictions without US-style Fair Use. I don't think the fork would have succeeded without mismanagement of both coding and licensing. Is this happening with Firefox? I think the licensing is being handled badly (as far as free software goes, anyway), but I don't know about the coding - I've seen disagreements about Google-bundling and so on, but I'm not sure how important they are to most Firefox hackers. What happens to the Mozilla/Gnuzilla and Firefox/IceWeasel forks probably depends how wisely each side of the fork manages their side and how many developers and users are persuaded by their reasons. Other forks have co-existed (GNU Emacs/X-Emacs, or the BSDs) for some time, with varying degrees of happiness over time. My opinion only, as far as I know. -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Somerset, England. Work/Laborejo: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request/peteble _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
