Re: X11 non open-source? (a solution?)

[George Bonser <grep@oriole.sbay.org>]

On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Erik Walthinsen wrote:

> Agreed.  What bothers me almost as much as the license change is their 
> audacity in keeping the "OpenGroup" name.  Everything they do now is 
> closed, limited to the select few organizations who are willing to pump 
> tens of thousands of dollars into this (now) sorry organization.

Go to that website and look closely at that logo.  "Open" is kind of a
play on words.  Notice that the O is really two mirror-image C's. I think
the C stands for Closed. They make their living snapping up open software
and closing it.

> All in all, cleanrooming things may be the best solution from a limited
> solution-set.  Unless something can be worked out allowing XFree to scrub 
> the license (for a licensing fee or not), that's what's going to happen.  
> Just like Linux (exactly like, in fact), XFree will become the dominant 
> branch.  Minix is basically dead.  X11R6.4 will be as well.

Exactly, they will become insignificant in the mainstream of things. 

I blame X.org for this.  Rather than follow the Netscape model, they chose
to follow the Microsoft model.  Ironic that Netscape relies on X yet when
Mozilla is made public, X is taken private.

I smell Gates somewhere in this.

Exactly who owns Open Group?



George Bonser 
Just be thankful that Microsoft does not manufacture pharmaceuticals.
http://www.debian.org
Debian/GNU Linux ... the maintainable operating system.

===
SEUL-Leaders list, seul-leaders-request@seul.org
===