Slashdot Log In
XFree86 4.4: List of Rejecting Distributors Grows
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Feb 18, 2004 08:53 AM
from the about-this-small-print dept.
from the about-this-small-print dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
XFree86 4.4: List of Rejecting Distributors Grows
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 682 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Free Software (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Is the GPL license a problem? (Score:4, Informative)
There's a separate bucket for licenses that don't meet their defintion of free....
Re:Is the GPL license a problem? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://sjhserv.net/)
Re:The reason OSS isn't taken seriously... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The reason OSS isn't taken seriously... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 03 2004, @06:02PM)
There is nothing more idealistic about "we want source in exchange for source" than there is about "we want money in exchange for source". Both approacches have problems, both approaches have benefits. The hassles arise when people try to take the source without the payment (the propriatary folks call it "piracy" and everyone nods and agrees that its horrible. Open Source says "licensing violation" and folks like you sneer and lecture about our fruitless idealism). Nice double standard there.
Re:The reason OSS isn't taken seriously... (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
SCO's interpretation is truly viral in every sense of the word. It takes your code, effectively kills it and makes it into SCO code. The GPL doesn't do anything near as bad as that. If you GPL your code you still have copyright on it and can relicense it however you want. Look at TripWire and GhostScript.
You know the more I think about it, the more the GPL seems like a wildflower. The seeds get cast out, blown about, some take root, some don't and occassionally you get these blooms that people can't agree on whether it's a flower or a weed. Yeah, that's it. Linux, the dandelion of the operating system universe. Let the wine jokes begin.
Support vendors with non-sucking free drivers!! (Score:4, Funny)
Ahhh, the song of the proprietary victim.
#include
What is the issue? (Score:4, Interesting)
Steve
Re:What is the issue? (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Monday July 14 2003, @08:43AM)
They will have to revert or face a fork IMHO
Re:What is the issue? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What is the issue? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://zen2.eum.ro/~gelu)
Theo mentioned forking -- it has already happened. While the XFree86 codebase is huge, I guess it's better that they don't fork it themselves, but rather join one of the groups that forked XFree86 already (either Xouvert or the freedesktop.org team) and merge efforts. It's a question of objectives and the OpenBSD team is well known for doing things themselves. But then again, three X forks is too much and no vendor will support all of them -- they scarcely support Xfree86 anyway.
It's good that the distributions reject this kind of David Dawes style sabotage licensing bullshit. This kind of sabotage didn't work in the past and will never work. It just adds more nails into the Xfree86's coffin.
Re:What is the issue? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday May 07 2004, @05:21PM)
Isn't this the end of the story, then? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because either he/they broke the GPL terms, OR they performed in unauthorized GPL'ing of the other, non-GPL-using contributors' source code.
Re:Isn't this the end of the story, then? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday February 08 2005, @07:15AM)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
(http://ookaze.dyndns.org/)
I say this, because RMS warned several years ago, I think, that putting your code under XFree licence (so it must have been mandatory) was putting it at odds, and was very dangerous, in case the project behaves badly.
That's just what happened.
You say there is chunks of code that have been copied from the linux kernel. I think you are talking about DRM, and I would say that was the other way around : DRI/XFree code was copied into the kernel.
XFree is so important, even I am considering contributing the little time I have to XServer sooner than I thought, if it does not see a flood of developpers in the two coming months (if this fiasco is not canceled, I mean).
I say "even I", because I have so little time on my hand, not for any other reason.
Re:What is the issue? (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Tuesday December 07 2004, @09:19AM)
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:What is the issue? (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.microsoft.com/)
I take it you mean FreeType which is included under a dual-license [freetype.org] of GPL and BSD-like.
Chunks have been copied from the linux kernel, and people like Alan Cox submitted patches
Alan Cox submitted patches [xfree86.org] are not under the GPL, but he wished to remain compatible with GPL applications (by using the old XFree86 license). The transfer actually has been from XFree86 to the kernel (fbdev) [mail-archive.com].
layman's version (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Tuesday February 24 2004, @06:10PM)
IAAL(ayman)
From the new XFree license (emphasis added):
- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer.
- 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.
- 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.
- Except as contained in this notice, the name of The XFree86 Project, Inc shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from The XFree86 Project, Inc.
The GPL pretty much says that the only restrictions you can place on redistribution are the restrictions in the GPL. You can't add any other restrictions, however harmless they seem -- I guess the argument is that it's the start of a slippery slope, and IIRC some of the old UNIX systems had to have 3 screens worth of notices like that one.I guess I can see RMS's point: if you let XFree require this notice, maybe Apache will want a notice too. And maybe Wall would want a similar notice for Perl. OK, that's annoying but we could live with it, even if we end up back in the UNIX days of multi-screen credit notices.
But then suppose NVidia releases a driver and says that you have to include an advertisement (not just a credit) for NVidia if you distribute it with the kernel -- or rather, they specify a credit message that many people would consider an advertisement. Well, now we've clearly crossed a line most Linux developers don't want to cross, but it's not exactly clear where that line was in the scenario I just mentioned. NVidia would say "all the other developers got to come up with their own credit text, why can't we say what we want to? If you don't let us have our free speech the terrorists have already won!"
And they'd have a point: if you let some people dictate terms to the GPL you don't have much grounds to keep others from dictating terms, and however innocent the first terms may seem, somebody will find a way to screw it up.
So, you have to kick the camel in the nose while that's still all he has in your tent.
Re:What is the issue? (Score:4, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
GPL, section 6:
The combined works of GPL'ed code plus code under this new X license has the further restriction of not being able to distribute it without those advertisements. So linking GPL code to XFree86 4.4 means you are breaking the GPL.
Re:What is the issue? (Score:4, Informative)
Among other things, it is not compatible with the GPL. That means that would be a GPL violation if a distribution chooses to supply GPL software linked with xlibs.
Lots of desktop apps are affected.
See the incompatibility with the GNU GPL [gnu.org] and more practical problems [gnu.org]Re:What is the issue? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What is the issue? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What is the issue? (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Tuesday September 09 2003, @01:49PM)
Re:What is the issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What is the issue? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is this obnoxious?
What is the big deal about a few lines of giving credit where credit is due? I'm guessing from your response that it goes beyond that?
Steve
Re:What is the issue? (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday November 30, @12:50PM)
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:
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:What is the issue? (Score:5, Informative)
Why is this obnoxious?
What is the big deal about a few lines of giving credit where credit is due? I'm guessing from your response that it goes beyond that?
My understanding (which could be wrong) is this: it's not that that clause is morally or ethically a bad thing. It's that that clause makes the license incompatible with the GPL, which explicitly rules out putting additional restrictions on the redistribution of the code beyond those already in the GPL. It doesn't matter whether you or I or anyone else thinks the additional restrictions are reasonable; additional restrictions make the license incompatible with the GPL.
A problem with the GPL, then? I don't think so. How do you write a license that, in advance, imagines every possible restriction on redistribution of code and takes care of allowing reasonable ones while forbidding unreasonable ones? The ostensible purpose of the GPL is to preserve freedom, so that's the side the FSF wanted to err upon; so "no more restrictions."
So what if the new XF86 license is incompatible with the GPL? Well, that means that the redistribution of any GPL'd software that links against XF86 software (such as xlibs) is a license violation, and therefore illegal. So the redistribution of e.g. GNOME, KDE, etc., under these circumstances would be illegal.
So people are not upset that the XF86 folks (or, specifically, David Dawes) are making an unreasonable demand for credit for their work. They're upset that he's created this unsolveable license conflict where, previously, up until January 30th, none existed . . .a license conflict because of a license change which seems to be provoked by nothing (who, exactly, wasn't giving XF86 credit for their work), and which will likely take a lot of time and work (developing a new X server under a different license) to solve.
That's my understanding. If it's wrong, I hope someone who knows more about this will chime in.
Re:What is the issue? (Score:5, Informative)
I think what's going on here is that there's some confusion about what's a derived work.
The new license applies to XFree86 and anything based on it. This sounds fair until you realize that if you write a program that just uses XFree86, you are, technically speaking, combining your code with theirs by linking to the xlibs and including the header files. This means you need to credit them. For Mandrake to use XFree86 4.0, they'd have to go through the documentation for every app and library that uses the xlibs and add the attribution.
It violates the GPL because it adds extra restrictions on what may be done with GPL'd code. The GPL allows you to distribute a GPL'd program without the XFree86 attribution but the new XFree86 license doesn't.
My take on this is that it's unintentional. I suspect that someone didn't think through the implications and that in a couple of days, the XFree86 team will amend the license to say that just connecting to the server or linking against the xlibs doesn't constitute a derived work. At least, that's my hope. Otherwise, it could take years for a new de-facto X implementation to emerge.
Re:What is the issue? (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
My two cents.... for all it's worth.
Stph
Re:What is the issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What is the issue? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
It won't be a big deal at first, but if everyone contributor to a project required a personal acknowledgement any time you acknowledge anyone else, it would be a pain.
Note that the clause says you have to mention XFree wherever you mention someone else. That is like holding your boss at fault because he contgratulated publicly two memebers of a project team without mentioning every person who had five minutes of involement in the project - leaving somebody out isn't always meant as an insult. The whole idea of open source is collaboration - if we want to make software which can build on existing software we can't design the licenses so that each version has to tack on all the restrictions of every preceeding version and then add two of its own.
Re:What is the issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.bartlettpublishing.com/)
Imagine you are a distributor who writes documnetation that ships as part of their distribution. With this new license, they would have to search out and find every attribution to include in their documentation.
Re:What is the issue? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://ian.goldby.net/)
They mention only 'practical problems' - that is, the problem of what to do if your product includes very many components, all under different old-style BSD-style licenses (with the acknowledgement clause) - that you end up having to include rather a lot of acknowledgements in all your publicity material.
I don't think it can be 'incompatibility' that is causing the current fuss. All of the following licenses are considered by the GNU to be incompatible with the GPL:
The original BSD license
The OpenSSL license
The Apache Software License, version 2.0
IBM Public License, Version 1.0
Common Public License Version 1.0
The Mozilla Public License (MPL)
The FreeType license
The PHP License, Version 3.0
Yet we don't see Linux distributers refusing to include products with those licenses.
If RedHat have a problem inserting the required acknowledgements into their publicity and packaging material in time for their next release, that is quite understandable. In that case they should talk to Xfree and come to an arrangement. Perhaps the Xfree people will allow them an exemption this time around.
Personally, this smells to me like politics and personality disputes. The major Linux distributors ought to be above such things.
Re:What is the issue? (Score:5, Informative)
You seem to imply that the Linux distributors don't care about those licenses and their GPL interactions, which is not true. The problem is that GPL programs cannot be linked to code (like libraries) that has advertising clauses.
I know that at least Debian is very careful to respect this restriction (GPL Ethereal is not linked with OpenSSL even though it loses functionality).
The real issue why this is a problem is that a lot of XFree86 is in the form of libraries (xlib). So any app that needs to link xlib cannot be GPLed. This screws up Qt, KDE, and many other things (basically any GPL app with a GUI).
It isn't as much of a problem with the things you name for a few reasons. A lot of old BSD licensed code got a licensing change (from the Regents) that removed the advertising clause. More importantly, a lot of the things you name (Apache, Mozilla) are not libraries so you don't have as much of a problem there.
This is a big problem and David Dawes and company have just made themselves irrelevant. They will have to back down (revert the license) or their project will be ignored from here on out. Distros will adopt other projects or do their own work on XFree 4.3.
Re:What is the issue? (Score:5, Informative)
It's no problem as long as you arent shipping any GPL applications linking with the incompatible code.
There are a whole bunch of GPL licensed applications that link to the X library code. The desktop environments, for starters.
So the choice is between not shipping the new version of X or not shipping any GPL licensed applications that use X. So you can have new X but no Gnome or KDE, or you can have the older revision of X and KDE and Gnome. Which would you prefer?
It's not that Redhat and the others have to insert acknowledgements, it's that they're not allowed to distribute GPL licensed components linked to code that requires them to insert acknowledgements.
Of course, there are ways around the problem. One I've seen would be to distribute the X libraries of a forked X linked with the GPL applications, and distribute the new X server as a completely standalone X server (which is how you can distribute commercial X servers with GPL applications). That would require double installs of a lot of things but it would probably be legal.
I can understand but.. (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Wednesday May 12 2004, @11:37PM)
Re:I can understand but.. (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://ewan.to/ | Last Journal: Monday September 04 2006, @04:49PM)
Ewan
Re:I can understand but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/ | Last Journal: Thursday July 24 2003, @12:24PM)
If Red Hat were shipping XFree86 4.4 without crediting every contributor, then they would be stealing code.
Re:I can understand but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.rigidsoftware.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday September 24 2005, @11:58PM)
(admittidly its not just any form of freedom the GPL is pushing)
Re:Only to idealogues (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/ | Last Journal: Thursday July 24 2003, @12:24PM)
Regarding Linus, I presume you're talking about BitKeeper, but that is different as he is not redistributing it.
Re:I can understand but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/religion/)
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.. (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.in-nomine.org/)
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.
Re:I can understand but.. (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.pillars.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 28 2004, @09:09AM)
The first incarnation of this version of libGLw used eight header files from LessTif [lesstif.org], four for each Motif version. LessTif is covered by the GNU Library General Public License (LGPL) whose terms are not compatible with the XFree86 licensing policy. Since the copyright holder of LessTif is the Free Software Foundation [fsf.org] (FSF), I asked Richard Stallman, president of FSF and so called "leader of the Free Software movement", permission to redistribute a copy of those eight headers under XFree86 terms, still maintaining the FSF copyright.
Observe that I was not asking him to change the license of LessTif as a whole, but only to allow me to distribute copies of some header files containing function prototypes, variable declarations and data type definitions. Even so, Stallman said no because the files contained "more than 6000 lines of code". Which code? The LessTif headers are mostly copies of the Motif ones and don't contain any original GNU "code"! I can't still imagine a reason for Stallman's negative answer except for paranoia. He seems to ignore what Motif is and that LessTif's API is simply a copy of Motif's one.
After spending some time, I made my own headers, that became much smaller than the previous ones because I included only a subset of the Motif API and merged everything into four files: 417 lines instead 6000. Humm, perhaps I should be grateful to Sallman too :-).
10 years my *ss (Score:5, Funny)
Your mother told you a million times not to exagerate.
Re:I can understand but.. (Score:4, Informative)
The Question (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://nullability.net/)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.sammamamma.com/ | Last Journal: Friday June 15, @01:49AM)
Re:The Question (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://jearl.0catch.com/)
The problem, as you say, appears to be personal. The folks at freedesktop.org have basically told the folks at XFree86 that they are tired of trying to work with them, and so now the XFree86 folks (David Dawes) have changed the license to make it more difficult for the freedesktop.org folks to simply use their source code.
The worst bit about this is that the XFree86 core haven't really been active developers for some time. In fact, most of their work predates Linux.
You can't pretend, however, that the licensing issue isn't important. Licensing issues generally turn out to be more important than technical issues. This change might not be *that* problematic, but who is to say that the next change won't be disastrous.
Re:The Question (Score:5, Informative)
Short answer, yes, for binary distribution it is that bad. For more [slashdot.org] than you want to know ..
Re:The Question (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.in-nomine.org/)
``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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The Question (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Friday November 30, @12:50PM)
Here's the CD containing Wurzel Linux 2.0, I grabbed it from isos.org. They rock! I was getting transfer rates of 2.5kbps! Only took a month.
Anyway, just boot from the CD, and follow the prompts.
Oh yeah, before I forget: This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors.
Let me know if you have any problems,
Squiggy.
Re:The Question (Score:4, Informative)
Vanity clauses (Score:5, Insightful)
(There's something sickly ironic about a vanity clause being an issue towards any license dreamed up by Stallman).
On the practical side, however, you're entirely correct of course. Again with the irony, this being the reason I refuse to start calling the OS I run GNU/Xfree/KDE/Linux.
Re:The Question (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday December 07 2004, @09:19AM)
Simple doesn't have to make it better. And the problem with advertising clauses was discusses over and over, to the effect that some BSD projects changed their licences to avoid it.
``More restrictive'' or ``more free'' is stupid criteria if you ask me. Most important, it's not true.
BSD and GPL licensing have their purpose.
If you can live with the fact that businesses can use your gratis work without even giving back their contribution, bugfixes etc, that's fine, use BSD licence.
But if you want your contribution to the society to stay open, with all the enhancements, use GPL.
That's author's decision, his view of the world. It has nothing to do with more free, or more restrictive. I mean, if it really was about ``more free'', and not some religious debate about a pet project, than all BSD OSes would be published as public domain, wouldn't they?
Robert
Re:The Question (Score:5, Informative)
(http://spiritraveller.blogspot.com/)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
You're new here, aren't you?
freedesktop? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://nermal.org/)
Re:freedesktop? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday May 21 2004, @10:08AM)
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.
X server vs xlibs (Score:4, Interesting)
Forking hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday December 08 2006, @04:28PM)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Saturday November 05 2005, @03:43PM)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday May 07 2004, @05:21PM)
XFree86 has never been GPL (Score:4, Informative)
(http://inconnu.islug.org/~ink)
Will we be stuck behind the times? (Score:4, Interesting)
Reading their 'diff' of the new and old licenses is a waste of time, as it's pretty much:
- all the old license
+ all the new license
So could someone break down the basic point of the changes? As far as I make it out, it's a simple case of 'we want to have everyone who contributed be credited with every copy', or is it somewhat deeper than that?
Perhaps distros should distribute XFree86 4.4 as source only and have it compile in a 'firsttime' sort of system when you boot Linux up after installation. From what I read in the XFree86 license, this would work. Could this turn into a BSD-like 'build all' for Linux?
Re:Will we be stuck behind the times? (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Wednesday February 16 2005, @02:50AM)
NVIDIA? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:NVIDIA? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:NVIDIA? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Every cloud has a silver lining (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, let's all start holding our breaths. At the moment, the fdo xserver is completely hardware unaccelerated and until the drivers are written, it will stay that way, negating any of its advantages. I really hope this project succeeds, but things like these make me worry.
Re:Every cloud has a silver lining (Score:5, Informative)
Why do they have a problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why do they have a problem? (Score:4, Informative)
(Last Journal: Thursday November 29, @09:35PM)
For one thing, any additional restrictions make a license incompatible with the GPL... That's enough to stop most everyone right there.
Re:Why do they have a problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's OK for any license to impose any restrictions that they want. Certain combinations of restrictions can't be mixed, but that's OK, too. These two licenses can't be mixed because of the interaction of both their restrictions.
The deal in this case is that this new XFree86 license covers one point release of one work of software, whereas the GPL covers thousands of works produced over the past couple of decades.
If, in a reverse of the situation, all of today's GPLed software had been actually released under the new XFree license, and the XFree86 project had just invented the GPL for their new 4.4 version, the outcome would be exactly the same: People would be dumping XFree86 4.4 because it was incompatible with the more commonly used license.
Re:Why do they have a problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday February 26 2003, @06:32AM)
Version Changes (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.rootsec.net/)
Don't major changes usually happen on whole numbers? Shouldn't they at least wait until 5.0 to change the license.?
Use Xouvert or FreeDesktop (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
If I remember correct then is Xouvert an early fork of X 4.4.
FreeDesktop is of course a long term better choice, but I don't think there is a working version yet.
This sucks... (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://agileartisans.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday June 18 2005, @08:11AM)
I haven't been keeping up... what's wrong with the new license?
If the new license is bad, what's gonna replace it? Another type of X?
Re:Doesn't seem as ugly as TeX's license (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.justgiving.com/garethowen | Last Journal: Thursday October 31 2002, @02:07PM)
And Don Knuth is a nice man, where as David Dawes went to the "Theo de Raadt Scholl Of Charm."
Text of License (Score:5, Informative)
(http://kenkinder.com/)
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 Forum@XFree86.org 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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://127.0.0.1/)
Oh great, here we go... (Score:3, Insightful)
God forbid we have a windowing system that:
1) Puts out well-tested, stable releases
2) Generally sticks to a solid release schedule
3) Doesn't depend on a zillion other libraries
4) Will still work happily on 486s
XFree86 has been a very good project. The freedesktop.org X server, though, will be very difference once the GNOME and KDE folks get involved. The nice, clean config file will be replaced by some arcane XML format. Features will be piled in on a whim, without long-term planning. It'll require libfoo-1.6.1pl3 but not any earlier or later. It'll take twice as long to start up, and need 64MB RAM to work.
Look at what's happening to GNOME and KDE (overengineering, bloat, chasing Moore's law). Now imagine what'll happen when these same developers start working on an X server. Aaargh.
Note: this is NOT flamebait; it's a serious issue. XFree86 has been a flagship open source project, and still values elegance, efficiency and sane releases.
Re:Oh great, here we go... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is more verbose a good thing? What matters is readability, and XML is a lot less readable than the format that XFree86 uses.
In fact, the XF86 config file would probably be better suited to XML than what it currently uses: XML is for structured data - have you read an XF86Config file lately? notice the structure?
Yes and the XFree86 file format is perfectly capable of representing structured data. How isless readable or less expressive than this:?XML is not the best data representation for human edited files, and on linux there is the unwritten policy that while we try to not require the user to edit files directly, we certainly want to make it easy if they choose to do so.
Even in OS X where XML is king, there are two supported formats for plists, and it is standatd convention to use XML for files that are primarily meant to be edited by the computer, and the other c-struct (old Next-Step?) style format for files that are primarily meant to be edited by humans.
Re:Oh great, here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.otierney.net/)
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.
XFree86 isn't that bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 03 2004, @04:03AM)
Really? Specifically what problems do you have with XFree86, or are you just talking about the most common themes in XFree86 desktop environments?
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
You know, one of the things that people like about Linux is that it doesn't have crazy hardware requirements. Unlike OS X, or, to a lesser extent, Windows.
Transparency can be nice, but honestly, it adds very little functionality to a desktop environment. Antialiased text was a different story -- it allows a user to be given more data, by using gray levels. Plain old window transparency isn't good for a lot other than eye candy. And that eye candy is largely novelty ("look, I have transparent windows!"), and not necessary a long-term draw. I've tried working with transparent windows, and never been too impressed. Generally, interfaces are fairly modal at the window level -- I'm working with a single widget, and don't need to see what's behind it, and I'd rather devote the pixels composing that widget to making the widget easily recognizable, instead of giving some information about what's behind it. It just makes it harder to see what's being worked on. The reason windows are draggable is so that you can drag them into a configuration where you can see both windows that you're working with for the rare occasions when you need to have multiple windows visible at once.
There are a few cases for transparency. It's nice for onscreen display type elements -- if someone wants to display song titles from their player, for example, they might be into displaying it transluencly. Frankly, though, the desktop metaphor is not a transparency-oriented one, and I've yet to see good improvements suggested to it that require translucency.
vector scaling
XFree86 can do vector graphics via OpenGL.
and GPU acceleration.
XFree86 has extensive support for both 2d and 3d acceleration.
Re:Oh great, here we go... (Score:4, Interesting)
How exactly... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://bartcentral.dommel.be/)
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! (Score:5, Informative)
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
WTF... (Score:4, Interesting)
Strange behaviour... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Debian refuses to include it? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's kind of like Libya saying, "Hey we're gonna stop our nuclear weapons program"
"But sir we don't have one..."
"So, no one needs to know that!"
keithP was right. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Why is libjpeg not a problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday September 09 2003, @01:49PM)
(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".
Why is it that distributors don't worry about libjpeg?
And to be really really save (Score:5, Funny)
(http://chlor.sourceforge.net/)
lenny@benny:~$ apt-cache show xfree86-common | grep Version
Version: 4.2.1-16
This shows how serious OSS is about licensing (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://knoppixquake.webhop.net/)
I understand the intent behind the new license, but it isn't practical for the distros. They made their case, and if the license isn't changed then they won't use the product. Isn't that how licensing should work? That is better than the distros saying "Sorry, we can't abide by these terms, but we are going to use your software anyway." At first I thought there might be bullying here by the distros, but XFree made the licensing change, the distros are the ones who have to choose whether to abide by it or not. Seems like the little guy has the power here.
Storm, teacup (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.tanasity.com/)
The basic problem is that there is no convention for listing contributors. You would think that it was not beyond the intellect of FOSS developers to come up with something suitable.
For instance:
If the standard was that the flag -contrib listed contributors, and dedications, together with the name of the program, then it would be simple to gather a list. And the work of gathering a list is what teh complaint is about.
Once you have the list, it's not difficult to display it on request or put it in a file.
It might also be a good idea to have a standard comments format (easily parseable) at the top each source file with the same info. You might need to define a format per language. I'd imagine something like
I've used an XML style above, but don't get hung up on that - it's a detail that doesn't matter right now. It could be
And guess what.. if you have the list in the source in a standard format, you can easily create the code for the contrib flag.
Really it's plain old good fashioned courtesy. If someone creates something that you are using then you should be acknowledging it.
And now for a political subtext... The whole issue with the naming GNU/Linux vs Linux is about attribution. To my mind it's unreasonable on the one hand to campaign for recognition in this way, and on the other to have a GPL that is incompatible with giving credit where it is due. It seems to me that there is a strong streak of not-invented-here at work.
Bozo.
Its Larger Than That (Score:4, Informative)
(Last Journal: Thursday July 10 2003, @10:13AM)
So XFree has to list contributors. Anyone who writes an extention to XFree now has to list these contributors plus any contributors to make there extention work. Depending on how another developer uses that extention, they might have to carry all of those contributor forward as well. But a month has gone by since the original extention was released and more contributions have been made. To keep up to date not only do you have to sync source but sync contributors.
As for the GPL, the reason for incompatibility is that to use the GPL you must not put any more restrictions on the code no matter how innocent or benign you think they are. Sacrificing the freedom of the code just to make sure someone's name is plastered in the right spots is selfish. There are proper places to site contributsion. Just not at the license level.
This is the reason why it was a good thing that BSD abandoned this thing. I'm all for giving credit where credit is due but not at the license level. It gets to be a meta-maintaince nightmare to adhere to the license.
App Licenses must be compatible with their libs (Score:5, Informative)
(http://jm-smith.com/)
Because they aren't linked together into one application.
Every XFree applications either links to an X library, or links to a library that links to an X library (insert as many levels of indirection as you wish).
Now that the x library licenses are no longer GPL compatible, every GPL X application is no longer legal for use with XFree 4.4. Which is the death of XFree, as we aren't about to throw out Enlightenment, Gnome, Mozilla, etc.
Far easier and more sensible to start using Xouvert or FreeDesktop than to dump millions of man-hours of contributed work simply to appease the vanity and anti-GPL zealotry of a few, regardless of how great their contribution was in years past.
In other words: License compatability between independent apps isn't an issue (each app's license can be adhered to independent of the others). License compatability between apps and the libraries they link to is absolutely critical, and XFree 4.4 breaks this with most of the applications that link to it. Which means Sianara XFree 4.4.
Just the kick we needed? (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Given the mass rejection of the current XFree (4.4) it would seem that not only should 4.3 be used, but also options for other window systems as well.
Making such significant changes is always a pain at first... or perhaps it's not the pain everyone thinks it might be.
I enjoy the interest in Linux I inspire at work when I bring my laptop in. They see that it doesn't behave significantly different from Windows and when I point out that it currently does every function that WindowsXX does for them with the possible exception of games, it makes them all the more curious to try it in light of the fact that it makes them VERY immune to email-born viruses and the like.
I draw this as a parallel to the reluctance that still exists in switching from XFree to another graphical environment.
Re:Distro Maintainers making my decisions for me n (Score:4, Informative)
While I can see the point of some of this, surely it isn't up to distro maintainers to decide which licences I can and can't accept for me.
No, but it is up to the distro maintainers to not break the law, which they would do if they distributed GPL'd software linked against libraries which are under a license that explicitly conflicts with the GPL. As has been explained by several people, multiple times in this thread.
What's the big deal? READ THIS (Score:5, Informative)
[forum] [XFree86] Announcement: Modification to the base XFree86(TM) license.
Sven Luther forum@xfree86.org
Sun, 1 Feb 2004 17:48:57 +0100
* Previous message: [forum] Re: Announcement: Modification to the base XFree86(TM) license.
* Next message: [forum] [XFree86] Announcement: Modification to the base XFree86(TM) license.
* Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 11:58:38AM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
> Announcement: Modification to the base XFree86(TM) license.
Hello,
As discussed with David, i am taking discussion concerning the
problematics aspects of this licence change here. I think i understand
somewhat the reasons behind the licence change, but i wonder if all the
consequences of it have been thought of before doing the change.
Also, there are some confusing wording in one of the clause, which i
believe would best be clarified as to what the interpretations of them
by the XFree86 project are.
Also, first notice that my position is actually quite inconfortable,
since i am here mentioning the concerns of wider community and criticize
the new xfree86 licencing, in other forums, i usually do the opposite,
and take xfree86 side on this, so please do not react badly, and let's
have a rationale conversation about this, so that things can all be
resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
1) Possible confusion.
The following clause is the most problematic of all the licence, and as
such it would be nice to clarify it before starting a polemic about it.
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.
Ok, what does this mean exactly ? If there is a end-user documentation,
but it contains no third-party acknowledgement part, do you still have
to put the acknowledgement or not ? Also, is the choice between putting
the acknowledgement in the end-user documentation or the software a
choice that is free to make, or is the second an alternative only if
there is no enduser documentation. And what do you mean by in the
software itself ? If this software is a linux distribution for example,
would a file on the CD which is copied to the disk be enough ?
2) GPL incompatibility.
This selfsame clause is also the one which clashes with the clasue 6) of
the GPL.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
And in the 'you may not impose any further restrictions' part. Since the
GPL does not force you to add acknowledgement in the end-user
distribution, then the clause 3) of the 1.1 XFree86 licence is indeed a
further restriction, which cause an incompatibility with GPLed software.
Now this is again modulated with the exact interpretation that is given
in the above point.
3) Where is the derivative work boundary ?
The problem is further muddled by the place where the boundary for
something being considered a derivative work. The GPL, contrary to the
LGPL, considers that everything linked with a another binary is a
derivative work
Project leadership (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.adrianbaugh.org.uk/ | Last Journal: Wednesday December 17 2003, @07:58PM)
Now consider XFree. Code can be licensed under one of several licenses; the whole kaboodle is also licensed under an additional license. This changes every so often, apparently without much notice or reason given. It's no wonder the distributions have finally had enough - now there are other X implementations approaching readiness I bet quite a few are getting ready to leave the sinking XFree ship. Now all we need is nVidia drivers for od.o...
Short answer to the question many are asking (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
As far as Stallman and his minions are concerned, Free means GPL. Any challenge to the GPL, however theoretical or unintentional, brings the zealots buzzing out of their hive of giant hornets, just spoiling for a fight. And they've been spoiling for this fight for years, purely on personality grounds.
That's the whole story. GPL or go to Hell. Nothing else.
Maybe these guys should write a HOWTO (Score:5, Funny)
Where is XOuvert in all of this? (Score:3, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday December 08 2006, @04:42PM)
The XFree86 contributors should come off of their high horse and GPL the code while they are at it. The original contributions of Keith Packard and the original X team dwarf those of the Johnnie Come Lately "Core Team."
Might Xouvert.org become the preferred X branch now that XFree86 has gone rogue?
Re:This is what I can't stand about the open sourc (Score:3, Informative)
They're changing their license, even though XFree contains GPL code.
Where? Find one snippet, I challenge you! Incorporating GPL'ed code into Xfree86 under the Xfree86 licenses. [xfree86.org] (both 1.0 and 1.1) would be illegal.
Thus speaks the GPL:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.