Re: tuntitko

[Johann D. <jo...@Do...>]

On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, James Gibson wrote:

> 
> 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....

I just realized something: XFree depends on the glibc, doesn't it ? As
does any program in Linux (even Netscape when it was closed-source).
I thought this was OK because the glibc was under LGPL, not GPL. I checked
om my system, and it seems the glibc is protected by the GPL, not
the LGPL. Has it allways been the case ?
That could be a really serious issue...

-- 
Johann Deneux