THE problem with xconq (long)

[Stan Shebs]

"A. Rick Anderson" wrote:
> 
> At 06:20 AM 2/4/2002 -0800, Stan Shebs wrote:
> >Ahem, I was never paid to work on Xconq.
> 
> My apologies.  You may remember the conversation that we had several years
> back when I was trying to get the guy doing the Yggdrasil Linux(R) distro
> to include XConq. At that time you agreed that the license for XConq was
> tainted by your work at the UofU, Apple and Cygnus.  From this comment, I
> incorrectly concluded that part of your work at these companies was
> supporting XConq.

It's "tainted" in the sense that employment agreements often lay
claim to related work done on an employee's own time, or if the
sources resided on an employer's machine for 30 microseconds.  :-)
So while I've applied the GPL to Xconq sources, technically I may
not have had the right to do so.

In practice, for Xconq nobody really cares that much, and the
situation isn't any worse than for the Linux kernel, whose
ownership is diffuse and obscure - at some point it will probably
turn out that due to a company acquisition or something, Microsoft
actually owns part of the kernel code, and then the fun will begin!

Stan