Hi, On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 08:45:10AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > On 12/29/10 08:20 AM, Tiago Vignatti wrote: > > Are we releasing only MIT based stuff within katamari? > > Yes, with one known exception, the entire katamari is MIT licensed. > > (The exception being the Linux portion of the xf86-input-keyboard driver, > which has code that someone noticed was exactly the same as a GPL licensed > file - but I don't think anyone ever asked the author, who was a XFree86 > contributor, if he had offered it to XFree86 under their MIT-style license, > and just assumed it was copied from the GPL sources without permission. > I'm occasionally tempted to solve it via "git rm src/lnx_*" and adding a > "if $target_os = "linux" then echo Use evdev already" to configure.ac, but > haven't yet cared enough to do so, since it doesn't affect any mainstream > distro of Linux (which use evdev) or non-Linux (which don't use lnx_*.c).)
Oooh, that would actually be quite nice. > > if build.sh matches exactly what gets released in X katamari then this patch > > probably is invalid. Are we doing in such way? > > It does not - it builds a number of apps we still maintain, but do not include > in the katamaris, as well as some dependencies like mesa that are completely > outside the X.Org git repos & tarball releases. Right. I'd forgotten that the Synaptics relicensing eventually went through, so my R-b was based on build.sh already building GPL modules anyway. Cheers, Daniel
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
