Yes it would be nice if X.org could use OpenGL directly for it's display and composition, but to date, nobody has made this possible. Is it wrong for a business to make it so? Since when does developing software for GNU products mean that they aren't allowed to do it privately? If Novell is developing XGL behind closed doors, and paying the developers to build it... Where's the problem?
Last time I checked, Open Source contributors had the option of making XGL reality. Numerous different projects have been born of the same idea, and quickly anesthetized due to lack of interest, talent, resources, or all of the above. This is not a case of a person or company stealing licensed open source code and re-branding it for profit (ex: CherryOS). This is a company building, what is essentially a plugin, for an open source project. Hundreds of companies due this as their core business.
The reality of Open Source project management is chaotic. It's not as stream-lined and "open" as proponents of the movement make it out to be. In fact, it is very cluttered with people who want to contribute, but just don't meet the criteria. A perfect analogy can be made of the recent hurricanes in the States. After the damage had been done, millions of people flocked to the devastated areas to offer help. Now imagine all of those volunteers are developers and contributors wishing to help build XGL, and only 1% of them are capable of actually contributing in a helpful way. Would you:
XGL - Realistically .