XFree86 4.4: List of Rejecting Distributors Grows

Bootsy Collins writes "Yesterday, we discussed Mandrake's decision to revert their release-in-development from XFree86 version 4.4 back to version 4.3 because of issues with the new XFree86 license. To update this, the list of OS distributors opting out of XF86 Version 4.4, and future releases, based on licensing concerns continues to grow. While Fedora seems to be "preparing to support multiple X11 implementations", Red Hat has explicitly stated that they have no plans to ship XFree86 v4.4 under its current license. Also add to the growing list list Debian, Gentoo, and OpenBSD."

I can understand but..

[Ymiris (733964)]

Won't rejecting this actually hinder the linux desktop movement? Xfree is a huge factor in using linux, at least for a lot of the gamers, and we need the best support we can get.

Re:I can understand but..

[Ewan (5533)]

XFree 4.3 is not dramatically different from 4.4, and if the 4.3 fork were to gain momentum you'd find very quickly that people who had contributed code to 4.4 would simply resubmit it to the fork, on the basis that whoever wrote the original code can resubmit it to anyone they want unless they transferred the copyright to the Xfree project.

Ewan

Re:I can understand but..

[dnoyeb (547705)]

The Linux desktop movement is based in an idea of Freedom. To accept a less than 'free' desktop for the 'free' desktop movement would not make sense.

(admittidly its not just any form of freedom the GPL is pushing)

Re:I can understand but..

[fsmunoz (267297)]

Well, XFree is pretty important, no doubt about that. But, as I see it, there are two different problems here that ultimatly will affect XFree86 more than the distros:

1) The version that falls under this new license in not very different from the previous one. There are improvements (and to some people they are big, e.g. support for they card) but it's not like it's a totally different codebase, most people with supported cards would probably not even notice the need. This is important because this makes things very easy to fork, and that is an option under consideration (read Theo's mail, for example). Couple that with freedesktop.org xlibs (see RedHat post) and you have the basis of a new X without this licencing problems (read Branden's (Debian) mail about more specific licencing issues).

2) I keep hearing reactions from X contributors that "XFree86 is not about Linux", basicaly asserting they would be fine or even better withour all this Linux distros bitching about their work. Well, if GNU/Linux and the BSD's drop the new X who exactly is going to use as a standard installed part of the system? Solaris x86 users? XFree86 importance and relevance is directly related to the widespread use of the Free Unices.

I would like to had that I'm quite happy about the rejection of the new licence being transversal across distributions and OS's; Mandrake, Debian, RedHat, Gentoo, OpenBSD, probably more will come once they reach a decision. This consensus is important because when it's just the FSF and Debian taking a position people dismiss it as "political rubish". Browse the previous discussions on this issue and you'll see people saying that this licence is only wrong for the FSF and Debian and that their will include the new XFree86 because they are pragmatics bla,bla,bla. This widespread agreement in rejecting the new licence shows that this issues *are* important and that in the long run *more* important that having a new graphic card supported.

I am, of course, very grateful to the XFree84 Project for their work. The fact that this licencing change was made in such an ungraceful mode does not affect that.

Re:I can understand but..

[Asmodai (13932)]

Because XFree86 changed the license it cannot be shipped? Don't fool yourself.

Ever looked at the rest of the sources? Allow me to quote:

xc/src/lib/FS: ``* Copyright 1990 Network Computing Devices;
* Portions Copyright 1987 by Digital Equipment Corporation
*
* Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software
* and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee,
* provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and
* that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear
* in supporting documentation, and that the names of Network Computing
* Devices or Digital not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining
* to distribution of the software without specific, written prior
* permission.''

``Copyright 1987, 1994, 1998 The Open Group
Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and its
documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that
the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting
documentation.''

And these are just two examples.

By the way xc/src/lib/GLw/README.html is fun to read as well to see an example of how the knife cuts on both sides.

So how is this different? It was never GPL compatible to begin with. Clearly the above conflicts to clause 6 as well.

The Question

[TwistedGreen (80055)]

I suppose that the question here is: why? Is the new licence really that bad? Is this reaction warranted?

However, if this does become a serious dispute, I can see it being a good thing for the desktop. Development will have the branch from the last version of XFree86 4.3 into some new direction which, hopefully, will make for a better X in years to come.

Re:The Question

[richie2000 (159732)]

On its face, the new license seems both reasonable and fair -- however, it also seems to create a lot of questions regarding how it should be interpreted [xfree86.org] and this is causing all the noise. My guess (and sincere hope) is that a clarification from, and possible minor re-write of the license by the XFree Project, Inc will clear this all up.

Re:The Question

[JohnnyCannuk (19863)]

Thanks for that link.

I've been going through this story and the previous one looking for the exact reason everyone is pissed and the answer was on the XFree86 site.

After reading that, I would say the licence issue is a tempest in a teapot. The gang at XFree86 seems to be debating and willing to change the wording so the new licence is NOT incompatible with the GPL (as evidenced by some of the solutions in the above mentioned post).

It seems to me the REAL issue here is a personality conflict between certain members of the XFree86 team (mostly David Dawes) and the rest of the community. So much so that we now have possible forks and alternatives springing up. Well guess what, this is nothing new in the open source world. Remember JBoss? It is well known in Java open source circles that Marc Fluery and a few others in the current JBoss organization are twats and thoroughly disliked by a large number of developers. So much so that a large chunk of the original JBoss team broke away and formed their own company and there are now real viable alternatives to JBoss springing up (Geronimo from Apache). But none of that means the code is bad, or the product is bad or the licence is wrong. Like it or not XFree86 is still the only real alternative to a commerial XServer right now, just as JBoss is the only real alternative to commercial J2EE servers.

I say, let them work it out like adults. If they can't, when XOuvert or freedesktop are mature enougth to be a real alternative, use one of them and move on.

Re:The Question

[ogre57 (632144)]

Short answer, yes, for binary distribution it is that bad. For more [slashdot.org] than you want to know ..

Re:The Question

[spiritraveller (641174)]

I suppose that the question here is: why? Is the new licence really that bad? Is this reaction warranted?

It is warranted.

Whether it's "that bad" doesn't matter so much as "is it really incompatible with the GPL."

If distributors would violate the GPL by linking GPLed programs to XFree4.4, they could be liable for statutory damages under copyright law.

One would hope that no author (of a GPLed program) would sue Debian (or others) for linking to XFree4.4. But hope doesn't pay the bills. Distributors need to comply fully with the licenses of the software they distribute.

Other than Debian, the distributors that have made this decision are businesses. It is not that they are GPL nazis... they are just dotting their Is and crossing their Ts.

Re:The Question

[markbthomas (123470)]

The license only requests proper attribution in software and/or documentation like other third parties are getting.

The license doesn't request attribution, it requires it. That is the problem. Can you see what would happen if every time I started my computer, it printed out the names of all the people and organisations that were involved in making it? It could take days to boot :)

It's just vanity.

Re:The Question

[Asmodai (13932)]

``3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", in the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments.''

Yes, if you have end-user documentation it asks you to have a tiny line about how there's code from the XFree86 Project.

So where you get the idea from that it should be spit out during boot is beyond me. Yes, I know it can also be done in software. But that's done where normal attributions are normally kept, say an about box, or -EEK- perhaps /COPYRIGHT. And note that the software requirement is a MAY, not MUST.

Let me phrase a question back at you lot: "What is against giving credit where credit is due?" Because it looks like some common courtesy seems farfetched with a lot of people at the moment.

And by the way, it is similar to zlib's license, which is not mandatory, granted, but how many of you have actually credited Mark Adler and/or Jean-loup Gailly for their work?

Re:The Question

[by Anonymous Coward]

Nothing against giving credit where credit is due, but the GPL does not allow any additional restrictions. Since combining XFree-new-licensensed software with GPL licensed software would add this requirement, it is a new restriction, and thus YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DISTRIBUTE AT ALL.

Which is why Mandrake and RedHat don't distribute XFree 4.4. Not because they don't want to give credit, but because they are not allowed to require others to give credit.

freedesktop?

[peterprior (319967)]

Looks like KeithP's freedesktop.org xserver is looking more attractive all the time..

Re:freedesktop?

[Ianoo (711633)]

If the worst comes to the worst, we can always stick around on XF4.3 for however long it takes him to make XServer production-ready code. With Red Hat, Debian, Gentoo and OpenBSD potentially looking for alterative solutions, it seems there might be sufficient clout to persuade nVidia and ATI to write new drivers for the new server, too.

Here's hoping. This will damage the Linux-on-the-desktop movement, but it's very good fortune that an alternative is nearly ready to step in to the fray.

Forking hell?

[byolinux (535260)]

What are the chances someone will take 4.3 and fork it, and carrying on development as free software?

Hopefully, eventually, XFree would realise how much they borked their userbase, and stop this sillyness.

I'd like to bet that a good proportion of their userbase comes from Distros, and if the distros drop 4.4, they're going to be hit rather badly.

I'm no XFree86 expert, but surely any changes committed by developers prior to the license change will be still under the previous license and therefore a good starting block for any forking.

Re:Forking hell?

[kevin_ka (753643)]

I'm no XFree86 expert, but surely any changes committed by developers prior to the license change will be still under the previous license and therefore a good starting block for any forking.

afaik your 100% right there. And the question isn't if someone will fork ist but when. (unless they change the license back in time)

Re:Forking hell?

[Ubi_NL (313657)]

You can even start from the 4.4 beta as that is the last GPL-ed version. All you then have to do is read the changelog / bug reports (not the code!) to get it into 'true' 4.4

NVIDIA?

[pyr0 (120990)]

This brings up a concern about NVIDIA drivers to me. Say NVIDIA only continues to release new drivers compatible with xfree86 4.4 and up. That's *really* going to put pressure on the linux distributions to include 4.4. I wonder how hard it would be for the recent X forks to maintain NVIDIA driver compatibility?

Re:NVIDIA?

[gukin (14148)]

It is _VERY_ unlikely nVidia will cut off support at 4.4 and above. nVidia makes very nice chipsets but more importantly makes excellent drivers that work with M$, Linux, FreeBSD etc. They are out to make money, they make money by selling products people want AND PRODUCTS RECOMMENDED BY OTHERS; this is where Linux support is important. Linux users are geeks, people ask geeks what kind of HW to get. I enjoy gaming (especially under Linux) so when someone asks me what kind of video card to get, I recommend nVidia. If nVidia told the Linux base to "stuff it", they would lose sales. They've done an excellent job of keeping the drivers for their products up to date, easy to use , fast and stable. I doubt they are going to change.

Sorry if I sound like a fanboy but video _is_ important and nVidia cards are the best supported and work the best under Linux for just about everything; I will continue to purchase and recommend their products.

Re:NVIDIA?

[Perl-Pusher (555592)]

Your assuming too many ifs. If this isn't worked out in a year. If there isn't a fork that works. If NVIDIA is woried about Xfree86 and not about an actual installed base of linux and BSD's. NVIDIA already supports more than one version of X, no reason to think they won't continue to. Remember they want to sell cards, not Xfree86.

Re:NVIDIA?

[bfree (113420)]

I suspect you couldn't be more wrong if you tried :-)

Firstly I think XFree86 will fall off the face of the earth. If distributions don't package it but instead go with X from freedesktop.org, XFree86 will die in weeks as developers will move over to the new, freer codebase (Keith Packard has said he wants the freedesktop.org release to be DFSG-free).

Replacing X cleanly on a package managed system has always been one of the more tricky things around, why do you think this will change? And what do you think will be the desire for people to support an organisation which the distributions have all turned their back on? I don't think the distributors only problem is distributing it themselves, I cannot see any good reason for them to help people use XFree86, it only slows development of their chosen system, and unless they release with a major showstopper (like no 3d and I don't see that happening) what will be the justification for doing the work?

This isn't just about gaming, it's about X! But to address what most people seem concerned about, binary drivers (this is why I try and pick hardware based on the Free driver support) the death of XFree86 will be a fait acompli if freedesktop.org can get the hardware manufacturers who currently supply binary drivers to announce that they will be shipping freedesktop.org drivers (and preferably not be shipping XFree86 4.4 drivers). If the hardware manufacturers won't do that then XFree86 may well become the closed binary drivers X, and freedesktop.org the Free one, in which case perhaps someone like transgaming would take on the work of providing a system for people to use XFree86. This is why it has always and will always be vital for people to work on Free drivers, even when binary drivers exist, otherwise you remain in the hands of the hardware manufacturers.

I think a bright future is ahead for X, and I just hope XFree86 don't reverse their position and possibly ruin it! The Free X development is probably about to come right out into the open, rejoice and stop worrying!

Every cloud has a silver lining

[kinnell (607819)]

This could be a good thing. If this continues to be a problem, it could drive a lot of people to the freedesktop.org XServer implementation [freedesktop.org]. This looks like it will come to be a much better implementation anyway, and will almost certainly develop faster in the future, given the same resources as XFree86. If a considerable number of developers/distributions worked on getting the XServer up to speed, with proper driver support, it would probably be better for everyone.

Re:Every cloud has a silver lining

[kinnell (607819)]

According to the gentoo list linked in the article, there is an effort to write a compatability layer for XFree86 drivers underway, so this should at least make it useable, if a little clunky. In any case, all the necessary information for writing drivers should be in the XFree drivers, so porting them should be a lot easier than writing drivers from scratch for someone who understands the code. I think it's more a matter of mindshare than anything else.

Text of License

[Bouncings (55215)]

Announcement: Modification to the base XFree86(TM) license.

After a thorough re-examination of the XFree86(TM) license and reviewing
how it fits in with the Project's long-stated licensing philosophy ("You
can do what you like with the code except claim that you wrote it."),
The XFree86 Project, Inc. has made some changes to its base license.
This license review was prompted by a desire to ensure that XFree86 and
its contributors are receiving due credit for their work. The text of
the modified license can be found at
http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licenses.html.

The purpose of these changes is to strengthen the "except claim you
wrote it" clause of the Project's licensing philosophy regarding binary
distributions of XFree86. While the original license covered this
adequately for source code redistribution, it has always been lacking
where binary redistribution was concerned.

This modified license falls easily within the long-standing XFree86
licensing policy, and so there has been no change to the classes of
licenses acceptable for code contributed to XFree86. In fact, some
contributions to XFree86 were covered by a similar license already.
Contributors to XFree86 remain free to retain copyright on the code they
contribute, and can also choose the license for their code within the
long-standing XFree86 licensing policy.

The license change applies to the base XFree86 license, and to source
files that explicitly carry a copyright notice in the name of The XFree86
Project, Inc. Copyrights and licenses in the names of others will not
be affected by this change. Furthermore, only a subset of such files
with an explicit copyright notice in the Project's name will initially
carry the modified license, which is the core XFree86 components, and
the source files where there is no explicit author list. The license
in the remaining files with an XFree86 copyright will only be changed
with permission from the listed authors.

The license change will be fully effective as of the 4.4.0 release.
The initial draft of the changes will be included in 4.4.0 RC3
(4.3.99.903). A source diff showing the initial draft of the changes
is being made available for review with this announcement, and can be
found at . All XFree86
contributors are invited to review the changes, and notify us of errors
and omissions so that they can be corrected before the 4.4.0 release.
Such notifications, as well as comments about the licensing changes
should be directed to the [e-mail] list. XFree86 contributors
are also encouraged to review the license change, and let us know if
they wish to make similar changes to licenses in their name.

* XFree86 is a trademark of The XFree86 Project, Inc., and is pending
registration.

Xfree86 -- Dustbin?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Looking at the list of distributions who say they are not going to entertain using Xfree86 with the v1.1 license, it would seem that all of the major distros are represented (except Suse?).

If that's the case, usage of XFree86 will simply stop at rev 4.3.mumble or go away entirely. I'd be pretty surprised if the XFree guys didn't back down. The alternative is a slow spiral into obscurity.

How exactly...

[randomencounter (653994)]

is the advertising clause incompatible with the GPL?

Yes, I know the FSF say it is, but it is a simple assertion that I have been unable to find explicit justification for. The only justification given in their statement is that it is awkward and impractical when in common use, this does not make it incompatible, it just means they don't like it.
Not the same thing.

I can see their point about not liking it, and not wanting to use it, I just don't see an explicit incompatibility.

Re:How exactly...

[bdeclerc (129522)]

is the advertising clause incompatible with the GPL?

Answer : Yes

More specifically: it is incompatible with clause 6 of the GPL, part of which reads:

You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

Since their advertising clause is "imposing further restrictions" it is incompatible with the GPL.

Even more, Clause 2 of the GPL itself forbids redistribution of GPL'd code as part of a "Program" which also contains parts with licenses incompatible with the GPL.

Since parts of the current XFree86 are actually licensed under the GPL, the Xfree86 guys have two options :
a) remove all GPL-licensed code from XFree86
b) get approval from all authors of GPL-licensed code in XFree86 for a re-licensing of their code.

Considering that Alan Cox has already clearly indicated he will not accept relicensing of his code under something other than the GPL, legally the FXree86 people are already obliged to remove all Alan Cox's code from their relicensed XFree86 before distributing it...

The GPL isn't viral, if they release something which contains parts that are GPL'd, and other parts that are incompatible, those incompatible parts don't become GPL, but they do have to either remove the GPL'd parts, or relicense the incompatible parts under a different, compatible license (which may or may not be the GPL itself).

If they don't, they open themselves up for a lawsuit from the copyright-holders of the GPL'd code (which will probably be the FSF in many cases).

And this is why the Distro's don't want to touch XFree86 4.4, as soon as they distribute it, they themselves are doing the same, illegal, thing that XFree86 itself would be doing, and they would be open to lawsuits...

It's the advertising clause stupid!

[bsdnazz (114881)]

The xfree86 V4.4 license adds

2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution, and in the same place and form as other copyright, license and disclaimer information.

3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", in the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments.

vs.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html

Strange behaviour...

[phrasebook (740834)]

What's with the people making these announcements? I read the comments by XFree86's David Dawes a while back - he only wrote about 2 lines or so, and hardly replied when people started asking for clarification.

Then Theo of OpenBSD in this thread [theaimsgroup.com] writes a quick response rejecting the whole thing, again with absolutely no explaintation as to why, and what the specific problems are.

Then check out the posts in that thread from Darren Reed, getting shot down as a troll straight away for inquiring what the problem with it actually is!

This kind of discussion and attitude floating around turns me off OSS a little. The last thing I want to see is multiple implementations of X servers in wide use, different ones on different distributions, some doing some things, others doing things a little differently. And of course yet more duplication of effort, re-writing code, etc. Seems a shame. Seems like we just have more fragmentation to look forward to.

keithP was right.

[7-Vodka (195504)]

This shows, that keith Packard and all of the other xfree86 developers that were involved in that minor altercation last year were right.

This license change can only mean one thing:
The people in charge of the xfree86 project are totally out of touch with the users AND the developers of the project they purport to run.

Oh well, now we can smack our foreheads, realize we should just have thrown all our support behind the guys who were voicing this opinion and do it now. Hopefully the new license for the alternative xfree86 version we will all start using will be gpl.

And to be really really save

[EachLennyAPenny (731871)]

Debian decided to stay with XFree86 4.2.1.

lenny@benny:~$ apt-cache show xfree86-common | grep Version
Version: 4.2.1-16

/me awaiting discussions about XFree86 4.4 licenses not until 2006-02-18. ;)

Re:What is the issue?

[// (81289)]

It is incompatible with GPL licensed code which links with it. It's actually the GPL'd bit which gets its licence broken.

They will have to revert or face a fork IMHO

Re:What is the issue?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Actually the OpenBSD people (who fight license battles more than just about any other OS/distro -- even Debian) don't think it is equivalent to a BSD license either (the original license was equivalent to the BSD licence in case anyone is wondering: XFree was never GPL'd). David Dawes thinks still thinks it is. If he believes that, I hope he will change the wording back so everyone else believes it too....

Re:What is the issue?

[bartjan (197895)]

Believed to be not compatible with the GPL.

The license itself is probably Open Source, but distributors would break the license of every GPL'ed program that links with XFree86.

Re:What is the issue?

[Ubi_NL (313657)]

The really interesting bit is that there is a lot of GPL-ed code in XFree. Chunks have been copied from the linux kernel, and people like Alan Cox submitted patches. As this code is GPL, XFree must also be GPL in order to use it, or the Xfree teasm must rewrite these parts. I understood Alan Cox opposes his contributions to be placed under the new licensing scheme.

Re:What is the issue?

[Gadzinka (256729)]

No, the code in question was sumbitted by its authors to XFree86 under the XFree licence. Remember, the author owns the code and he can licence it as many times as he wishes, every time with different licence.

So it doesn't make XFree86 ``gpl derivative''.

But those people who sumbitted those patches oppose changing the XFree licence on their code to something GPL incompatible. At least I've heard that Alan opposes, but I don't believe they asked all contributors if they agree to licence change.

Robert

Re:Isn't this the end of the story, then?

[Lussarn (105276)]

Alan cox can do pretty much what he wants with his own source, it is not GPL just because it is in the kernel and Xfree (It becomes more like dual licenced).

And as the last Xfree licence was a BSD style one the Xfree team can change the licence to pretty much what they want, including an MS EULA one, the BSD licence is pretty loose.

Re:Isn't this the end of the story, then?

[DarkMan (32280)]

No, because it's perfectly possible to have code under two liscencesin the same program.

The problem arises when you want to change that liscence. Actually, it's two problems:

1) The contributors must all agree to the liscence change. If they don't, you have to back out thier code, or not change the liscence. That's the fundemental protection of copyright.

2) The new liscence is incomplatable with the GPL. Thus, you can't mix GPL code with code under the new XFree86 liscence. You could with the old liscence. This a result of the wording of the two liscences.

Neither problem existed prior to the liscence change.

Re:What is the issue?

[nickos (91443)]

Taken from a usenet post by Paul Cannon from linux.debian.legal on 2004-01-30:

The new license has a reworded disclaimer, and a numbered list of terms instead of the terms simply being stated. It goes farther than the old one in specifying that the conditions apply to binary distributions as well as source.

The change that causes problems is the addition of the third condition:

"3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", in the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments."

Several posters on slashdot and elsewhere have mentioned the similarity between this and the old, obnoxious BSD "advertising clause":

"3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors."

The FSF is quite clear (see here [gnu.org] and here [gnu.org]) in that they do not consider licenses with the advertising clause to be compatible with the GPL. In addition, the same reasons they give appear to apply also to the clause added by the XFree86 folks. That is, one cannot distribute something under the GPL with added restrictions like the one above quoted.

Re:What is the issue?

[Snags (18929)]

How is this different from the license for libjpeg? From jpeg-6b/README: "(2) If only executable code is distributed, then the accompanying documentation must state that "this software is based in part on the work of the Independent JPEG Group"."

Re:What is the issue?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Notice the word "only".

Re:What is the issue?

[fnj (64210)]

Both the new XFree86 clause and the original BSD clause are simple vanity clauses. Fixating on these as "restrictions" sounds pretty foolish to me. Can it possibly be that the GPL is foolishly crafted to go to war with such simple requirements, which have absolutely no bearing on whether the end product is either free beer or free speech?

Re:What is the issue?

[squiggleslash (241428)]

I don't personally think it's obnoxious in spirit, but it does force a redistributor to put in extra effort in materials outside of simply recompiling the software and passing it on.

The GPL, for instance, also has a "credit where credit's due" clause, but you'd have to actually go out of your way to modify an already GPL'd program to break it:

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

• c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

By comparison, the XFree86 license is requiring that redistributors of XFree86 modify their documentation and/or files containing credits. That can affect you even if all you plan to do is put a copy of XFree86 on a CD for someone else and include a note saying "Here's how to install it".

I'm not 100% there's no workaround that satisfies both parties, and it's notable that XFree86 is a stand-alone package, so it can safely be distributed on the same CD as, say, GNOME (though it may be necessary to include an additional X server that's unambiguously GPL compatable in addition to XFree86 4.4) without breaking the licensing for GNOME.

In general, XFree86 has made a mistake in that most authors should try to use an existing license that's a known quantity and is as compatable with as many licenses as possible. The new license appears to break this principle.

Re:Will we be stuck behind the times?

[thelasttemptation (703311)]

except if you notice that openbsd and gentoo, both source only compiles won't include it. The problem is the licence is simlar to bsd's but requires extra credit to be placed all over the distro. Anything that links to the xfree code that is gpled or uses a bsd licence is breaking the gpl/bsd licence because of the extra stuff they need to do in order to link to the libarys. In order to make a distro with 4.4 included, you would need to rewrite every app that links to X to the X licence, else you are breaking the gpl and as a distro maintainer, you'd be responcable for the breaks.

Re:Doesn't seem as ugly as TeX's license

[gowen (141411)]

Well, the major difference is that TeX is as close to bug free as I expect I'll ever see a major piece of software to be.

And Don Knuth is a nice man, where as David Dawes went to the "Theo de Raadt Scholl Of Charm."

Re:Why do they have a problem?

[Trurl's Machine (651488)]

The new license requires you to place acknowledgement "This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", and requires for it to be "in the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments". Innocent as it sounds, it's actually a helluva loophole for lawyers that could sue your pants off for simply advertising, say, "with full iTunes DRM compatibility" on the cover of a boxed edition of your distro. Unless you really want to write "with full iTunes DRM compatibility and this product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors".

Re:So let me get this straight...

[0123456 (636235)]

"They're having a hissy fit over a license that requires you to acknowledge if/when you use xfree86 and that tells you to incluse that acknowledgement in the same place you include other acknowledgements about your software?"

Yes. Because if every app required that then the back of the box would be filled with 0.01 point fonts listing every single piece of software that was included in the distribution. It's just silly.

Also, as has been pointed out, there's probably GPL-ed code in XFree86. Now, I don't really care what people do with the GPL code I've released, _OTHER_ than change the license on me. Anyone who takes my GPL code and tries to release it under a different license -- particularly, like this, a more restrictive license -- would deserve a swift kick in the ass.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Sancho (17056)]

No, they're having a hissy fit because they can no longer distribute binaries of GPL'd software linked to xfree86. This is because the GPL and the new xfree86 license are incompatible. The GPL clearly stipulates that additional restrictions on the distribution of the software is not allowed. Requiring attribution, as minor as this is, is an additional restriction.

Re:Oh great, here we go...

[OmniVector (569062)]

I'm sorry, but whether you like or not advancement will occur. The simple truth is XFree86 is not capable of the features one should expect from a modern display system. Take one look at Mac OS X's Quartz Extreme in a CompUSA to get a good example as to why XFree86 (NOT X11, that isn't the problem) needs to shape up it's act.

It's one thing to want to keep compatability with older systems, it's another to outright deny the forward progress of utilizing modern hardware for the greater benefit. X11 is a protocol, and as such it will remain implementation neutral. Let the ludites running 486's keep their XFree86, and let us get on with our lives using a modern X11 implementation with real features like true transparency, vector scaling, and GPU acceleration.