(In reply to comment #8) > Four downstream dists seem like enough. > > Reviews of each of the three as of yet unreviewed patches are welcome. > > These urls are mentioned in Gentoo’s patch: > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/360987 > http://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/plain/trunk/xdm-consolekit.patch?h=packages/xorg-xdm > http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2011-February/019615.html > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=615020 > > > Samuli: I don’t see any license info in the patch in portage; it is > definitively under an MIT-style license?
The patch in Arch and Gentoo is modified (improved) copy of the OpenSuSE patch. So license is presumably same as what OpenSuSE is using for their patch.
(In reply to comment #8) bugs.gentoo. org/360987 projects. archlinux. org/svntogit/ packages. git/plain/ trunk/xdm- consolekit. patch?h= packages/ xorg-xdm lists.x. org/archives/ xorg-devel/ 2011-February/ 019615. html bugs.debian. org/cgi- bin/bugreport. cgi?bug= 615020
> Four downstream dists seem like enough.
>
> Reviews of each of the three as of yet unreviewed patches are welcome.
>
> These urls are mentioned in Gentoo’s patch:
>
> http://
> http://
> http://
> http://
>
>
> Samuli: I don’t see any license info in the patch in portage; it is
> definitively under an MIT-style license?
The patch in Arch and Gentoo is modified (improved) copy of the OpenSuSE patch. So license is presumably same as what OpenSuSE is using for their patch.