On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:21:38PM -0500, Gaetan Nadon wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 17:13 +0000, Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 08:45:10AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > > > On 12/29/10 08:20 AM, Tiago Vignatti wrote: > > > > 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. > > Anyone has any idea why the xrestop repo is listed under "X.Org > Applications"? > And described as "X.org xrestop application." ?
It was just the automated CVS -> git conversion; it's a filler description. > I am still puzzled as to what "belongs" to X.Org or not. Or even if this > concept applies. Well, there's a bit of a disconnect between what we have in git, and what we ship in the katamari. The katamari is MIT/BSD-only, but some of the git modules have been less permissive: xf86-input-synaptics used to be GPL, xrestop, et al. xf86-input-wacom is GPL as well, and is currently not hosted in /git/xorg, but I expect it will at some stage. Personally, I don't see the harm in allowing new GPL modules, given that vendors can pick and choose what they want to distribute, but it's such an emotive and time-worn fight that I'm not sure it's worth the argument. 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
