[5250] in RedHat Linux List
Re: X license.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Otto Hammersmith)
Tue Nov 19 23:43:36 1996
From: Otto Hammersmith <ohammers@cu-online.com>
To: redhat-list@redhat.com
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 22:41:18 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <32926F92.7D2CE9EF@in_my.signature> from "Borg" at Nov 19, 96 06:40:18 pm
Resent-From: redhat-list@redhat.com
Reply-To: redhat-list@redhat.com
Borg wrote:
>
> 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.
Different license... the confusing part is that the X license doesn't
seem to explicitly prohibit not distributing source code.
> > 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?
Of course... all memers did.
> (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?
X-Inside changes the X server, does not distribute those changes, and
charges for a binary version... Red Hat recompiles XFree, doesn't
change anything (significant), and distributes source code. Seems
quite different to me.
--
-Otto
--
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
