home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!decwrl!ogicse!reed!henson!news.u.washington.edu!stein.u.washington.edu!tzs
- From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
- Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
- Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
- Message-ID: <1i9e8rINN1lk@shelley.u.washington.edu>
- Date: 4 Jan 93 13:32:11 GMT
- References: <1i8cvgINN9ar@shelley.u.washington.edu> <1993Jan4.071214.759@athena.mit.edu> <STEINARB.93Jan4112526@tindved.idt.unit.no>
- Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
- Lines: 22
- NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu
-
- steinarb@idt.unit.no (Steinar Bang) writes:
- >A lot of improvements to the MIT X code has never been merged back
- >into the free MIT distribution. For two reasons, I guess:
- > 1. It won't fit into the MIT code without large modifications that
- > may affect other parts of the system.
- > 2. It hasn't been made available to the X consortium.
- >
- >The FSF way at least seems to make more changes done by other parties
- >being made available to the users of freely available GNU software (me
- >among others).
-
- So? I don't see how it matters whether a company uses X code in their
- windowing system and won't give out source as opposed to writing their
- own X clone from scratch and not giving out source. In either case,
- you don't get source.
-
- However, if they use X code from MIT, perhaps they get their product out
- faster, and you get more choices in whose X implementation you use.
- Furthermore, you are still free to take the X code from MIT and use it,
- and the X code from people who have chosen to make their source available.
-
- --Tim Smith
-