glib dependency for the X Server

[Russell Shaw]

Erwin Rol wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 09:38 +0200, Matthieu Herrb wrote:
> 
>>Daniel Stone wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:08:41AM +0200, Matthieu Herrb wrote:
>>>
>>>>No, LGPL is not the same as the X/MIT or BSD license. It has more 
>>>>constraints.
>>>>
>>>>O.Org has firmly stated in the past that it would keep its code under 
>>>>the X/MIT license, so this is unacceptable.
>>>
>>>This is not X.Org's code, it's ancillary.  You could make the argument
>>>that there's no usable MIT-licensed compiler, either, so X's dependency
>>>on same is also unacceptable.
>>
>>In Eric's proposal Glib gets linked into the X server: you need it to 
>>run the server.
>>This is not at all the case with the C compiler (or with autotools and 
>>other [L]GPL like code already used).
> 
> What about the GNU C-library, that is LGPL. Does that make it
> "unacceptable" for you to use Xorg on Linux ?

The C lib is mostly generic functionality that can be easily
found from other sources and under various licences. Glib is
a one-off specific api, which would force the one and only
Glib to be required.