GPL and missing licenses in xf86-input-keyboard? (was Re: [ANNOUNCE] xf86-input-keyboard1.2.2)

Paulo Cesar Pereira de Andrade pcpa at
Thu Sep 6 15:09:48 PDT 2007

Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 06:34:27PM -0300, Paulo Cesar Pereira de Andrade wrote:
>>  Most of the code of the BIG companies isn't even used
> This is not even remotely true.  Without DEC code, you can't start the
> server, process options, run input events, process any client requests,
> send client events.  Without SGI code, you can't send keyboard events.
> And so on, and so forth.
  Hopefully a discussion like this one can reach the proper people. There is nothing
preventing a GPL X server, the same way there is nothing preventing Linux, but I am
sure there are people that would be more comfortable if it did not exist.
  For some weird reason, people prefer to have KDE vs Gnome, or Linux vs BSD, etc.
but only one X.
The code you talk about is trivial, not something one would write in a weekend, but
doesn't require a group of genius people to (re)write.

>> or, there is so 
>> much changes from XFree86/Xorg people on it, that the original code may 
>> be only a few lines
> Again, patently untrue.
  I am not a Lawyer, and/or understand about the US Laws. But I am pretty sure that this is all subject to interpretation.

>> and since it is an open standard, one could rewrite the missing pieces
>> of code.
> Well, don't let us stop you ...
>>  I would support the decision of, from now on, not making restrictions 
>> of only accepting BSD/MIT style license in the X source tree.
> Thanks for your support, we'll bear it in mind.
> Cheers,
> Daniel

  I believe most people here, or reading this list agree that a GPL X implementation is
 possible. Well, Mesa was once 'obligated' to change from GPL to 'MIT like' license, and
probably nobody wants some stress like that again.


More information about the xorg mailing list