On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 02:39:01AM -0500, Mike A. Harris wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, David Dawes wrote:
Also check the LICENSE document
http://www.xfree86.org/~dawes/pre-4.4/LICENSE.html. There is a lot
of FUD being circulated about the licensing, so check here for the facts.
Also check
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 02:39:01AM -0500, Mike A. Harris wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, David Dawes wrote:
Also check the LICENSE document
http://www.xfree86.org/~dawes/pre-4.4/LICENSE.html. There is a lot
of FUD being circulated about the licensing, so check here for the facts.
Also check out the
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 09:26:23AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 02:39:01AM -0500, Mike A. Harris wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, David Dawes wrote:
Also check the LICENSE document
http://www.xfree86.org/~dawes/pre-4.4/LICENSE.html. There is a lot
of FUD being circulated
Ar an 18ú lá de mí 2, scríobh David Dawes :
Lets face it: Your real objection is to giving credit to XFree86 and its
contributors. GPL-incompatibility and FUD about FSF-freeness(*) of the
modified licence is just a poor excuse.
I think it's unfair to assume that, David, especially since
Incident Information:-
Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Recipients: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3
Message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] was quarantined because it contained
banned content.
--
El Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:01:13 -0500 David Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
Don't rely on the FUD being circulated by people who can barely hide
their prejudice. Go straight to the definitive sources on licensing
issues, namely the FSF and the OSI, and come to your own conclusions.
Well, if
DD [XFree86] was not, as a whole, FSF-free before the change, let
DD alone GPL-compatible. Same after the change. But then XFree86
DD has never factored in those two licensing criteria.
That's not quite the point, David.
Of the many reasons for which I was happy to contribute my work to
Hi,
[I hope this is the right forum for this ...]
I'm using the Xvfb from XFree86 as a dummy server for regression testing
WINE. A recently added conformance/regression test causes Xvfb to
consistently seg-fault. I've tried rebuilding Xvfb with the CVS HEAD
version (as of 2004-02-17). The
Paul,
for what it's worth, I've also noticed wine apps killing Xvfb. This was
with redhat 9's XFree86-Xvfb-4.3.0-2.
We ended up changing from Xvfb to vncserver, both for this reason and
because an error condition can require user intervention with our wine app.
I don't have any better test
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 04:19:31PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
DD [XFree86] was not, as a whole, FSF-free before the change, let
DD alone GPL-compatible. Same after the change. But then XFree86
DD has never factored in those two licensing criteria.
That's not quite the point, David.
Of
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 09:30:35AM +, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
Ar an 18ú lá de mí 2, scríobh David Dawes :
Lets face it: Your real objection is to giving credit to XFree86 and its
contributors. GPL-incompatibility and FUD about FSF-freeness(*) of the
modified licence is just a poor excuse.
Incident Information:-
Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Recipients: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3
Message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] was quarantined because it contained
banned content.
--
It was okay for Debian or FreeBSD to grab a routine that I wrote,
as it was for Apple or Microsoft.
DD They still can use your code, because *you* choose the licence for
DD your code.
And you choose one for yours, and Mark for his? The situation is
going to become mighty confused. Are you
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 08:30:48PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
It was okay for Debian or FreeBSD to grab a routine that I wrote,
as it was for Apple or Microsoft.
DD They still can use your code, because *you* choose the licence for
DD your code.
And you choose one for yours, and Mark for
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, David Dawes wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 09:30:35AM +, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
There have been almost no expressions of support for this change, and
coherent objections from many of those whose contributions matter to the
project. I'm surprised you're still going ahead
DD Even FreeType requires something in the documentation
I know that. I disagree with FreeType's licensing as much as I
disagree with the new XFree86 license, and I have told David Turner
what I think about it.
David, the fact that other people use silly licensing terms does not
mean that we
Hi,
as developer of 855patch I get a lot of feedback from people using
XFree86 on computers with i855GM graphics.
It seems like new notebooks by Dell feature a new video BIOS from Intel
(iirc Build 3066) which finally implements the int 0x10 0x5f11 function
to set the amount of video RAM and thus
I found the link to the DocBook pre-release note for 4.4 on XFree86.org
http://www.xfree86.org/~jwhimpel/html/ReleaseNotes-Smm-of-Upd.html says:
On Darwin, IOKit mode now used shadowfb for must faster drawing.
I think that should be now uses shadowfb for much faster drawing.
Since I'm
My point all along has been that the XFree86 licensing policy has not
changed. If it is bad now, it was bad before. Why wasn't anyone
complaining before?
I hope my FQDN does not negatively impact my remarks but ... if no-one
was complaining before why are you so determined to change the
19 matches
Mail list logo
