[5240] in RedHat Linux List
Re: X license.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Borg)
Tue Nov 19 21:44:15 1996
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 18:40:18 -0800
From: Borg <see_address@in_my.signature>
To: redhat-list@redhat.com
Resent-From: redhat-list@redhat.com
Reply-To: redhat-list@redhat.com
Otto Hammersmith wrote:
......
> My question is, what prevents a company from modifing X a little bit,
> then selling binary-only X servers?
The same thing that prevents Bill Gates III from taking
Linux kernel and making it proprietary or the same thing
that prevents, say, Borland from taking gcc/g++ and re-
distributing as binary.
> Basically, why it comes down to this: why are X Inside, XFree, and so
> on, members of the X consortium?
Maybe they paid for their membership?
(other than the access to
> prereleases) Couldn't they do their business just as Red Hat does?
What's the difference between X-Inside's ways of making
business and RedHat ones?
--
#include <disclaimer.h> | *Good pings come in small packets*
Vlad Petersen | Linux: multiuser, multitasking,
Vancouver, B.C | multiplatform, 64-bit and free.
vladimip @ iceonline.com | Ceterum censeo Microsoftam delendam esse
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
________________________________________________________________________
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-Errata
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-Tips http://www.redhat.com/mailing-lists
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe redhat-list-request@redhat.com < /dev/null
