gnewsense-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [gNewSense-users] Bug 00129 query.


From: Kevin Dean
Subject: Re: [gNewSense-users] Bug 00129 query.
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:52:42 -0500

Karl summed it up pretty well. :)

As I've said before, Debian has had this bug open for the past 4 years
and they've released TWO stable releases while this bug was still
open. Frankly, that disappoints me coming from Debian.

The only other group of people I've seen take this issues seriously is
OpenBSD. I've spoken with Theo De Raadt who believes this is a big,
but not yet critical issue and there is discussion about re-writing
the glx files to make them Free Software.

At this point we don't have a glx replacement so our choices are
limited to remove glx (and cause breakage) or include non-free. I'd
seriously urge that anyone who has the coding ability to do so contact
the OpenBSD Xenocara team to discuss where they are on this. I'd help
out if I could code but at this point I simply don't have the skill to
tackle something this "big".

-Kevin

On Dec 21, 2007 6:43 AM, Karl Goetz <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 23:20 +0000, Chris Andrew wrote:
> > Hi, all.
> >
> > I was just looking at Bug 00129, which still seems to be an issue on
> > the Suspected non-free page.
> >
> > http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00129
> >
>
> i just marked http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00129 (wordy sgi licence is
> non-free) as a dupe of http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00103 (xfree86
> includes software under non-free licences). i also bumped the priority
> of bug 103 to L2, and copied over all comments from 129 for easy access.
>
>
>
> > It seems that research has been carried-out and that xserver-xorg is
> > non-free.  Is this definitely confirmed, and if so, will we be looking
> > at the dependencies and considering the implications of removing?
>
> it contains non-free files (two). saying 'all of xorg is non-free' is a
> bit misleading :)
>
> >
> > I know this is a biggy, and removing it will be huge, but I think we
> > have to consider this as an option.
>
> unless we have luck finding someone to rewrite the two files listed in
> 129, plus any otheres that are found.
> (i note at this point those are the only two files under the SGI licence
> i'm aware of).
>
> >
> > What does anyone think?
> >
>
> i think it needs more people to test kevins/my packages and break thier
> systems to help us decide :)
> kk
>
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Chris.
> >
> >
> --
> Karl Goetz,
> Debian user / Ubuntu contributor / gNewSense contributor
> http://www.kgoetz.id.au
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gNewSense-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
>




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]