Re: tuntitko

[James G. <twi...@su...>]

On 3 Dec 2001, at 22:00, Jakob Eriksson wrote:

> > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:34:04PM +0100, Lorenzo Delana wrote:
> > 
> > > > I think tuntitko uses the same license as XFree86, so that it
> > > > could be merged in later. 0rfelyus should know.
> > > 
> > > right I understand now, clearly all the things near to XFree86
> > > should to be licensed under XFree86 license so the merge with it
> > > is possible.  So I'm accordly to use an XFree license.
> > > 
> > > Ley me undertand... XFree86 license cannot merge with GPL parts in
> > > any case ?
> > 
> > Honestly, I'm not sure now. I think they could be compatible, but I
> > don't remember the XFree86 license exactly. Anyway, you can't add
> > GPL'd code to XFree86 without imposing GPL restrictions on XFree86
> > as a whole.
> 
> X11 licensed code can be integrated into GPL code.
> Not the other way, then "the product as a whole" becomes GPL,
> and the XFree86 people don't want that...
> 
> X11 is very permitting, says basically; "do what you want.
> We are not responsible for what happens."
> Jakob
I was looking into writing a module to replace the legacy keyboard 
support in X using the input specifications a while back.. I ran into 
the block we have here: I was able to sketch out some pseudo 
code, but never went any further when I realized I couldn't get by 
without pulling verbatim some struct{}s from the input headers in 
the linux kernel, specifically the structure of the input packets, 
etc..... is there possibly a design document that has this 
information in a license-neutral format that I could use instead of 
the kernel headers? Or am I okay using the structures? I never was 
able to get an info on this from the Xpert list....




James Gibson
twi...@su...