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."

Free Software

Doesn't 'sell' well when it isn't free ;)

Re:Is the GPL license a problem?

Umm... go read the FSF's website again. All of the licenses mentioned meet FSF's definition of free (early versions of the APSL notwithstanding). None of them are GPL-compatible, however.

There's a separate bucket for licenses that don't meet their defintion of free....

Re:Is the GPL license a problem?

It is only linking between software with these licenses that is the problem. With most of the licenses above there are ways of getting around it. The problem with the new xfree86 license is that you have gpled software such as gtk and qt that are going to be directly linking with xlib. These plus the various window managers and other applications that link with xlib and are gpled are probably 99% of the use of xlib. I havnt verified this, but Im willing to bet that only 1% of the software that currently links with xlib in debian could keep doing that with this new license. That is why all these distributions will not be shipping xfree86 4.4. They couldnt use it and it would be a waste of packaging.

Re:The reason OSS isn't taken seriously...

OSS isn't taken seriously? Maybe someone should tell all these [netcraft.com] poor suckers relying on it.

Re:The reason OSS isn't taken seriously...

...is because of issues like this. Idealistic licensing issues.

This is why Propriatary Software isn't taken seriously, because of all the idealistic licensing issues (see SCO vs. IBM, MS vs Everybody, etc).

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...

Hey, you brought up SCO and didn't elaborate on their license. Basically they say, any modifications you make are owned by you but due to the licensing agreement you may only incorporate that code into our products unless you get permission from SCO first.

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!!

which branch does nvidia take

Ahhh, the song of the proprietary victim.

#include

What is the issue?

Why is the new liscence being rejected?

Steve

Re:What is the issue?

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?

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?

The OpenBSD group has done great work in the past taking ipfilter out of the code base and replacing it with something better -- packet filter. I hope this great work gets integrated in every BSD out there.

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?

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?

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.

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

So doesn't this mean that whoever comingled GPL'ed source code with non-GPL'ed source code broke someone's copyright?

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?

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?

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?

I do not think there is any GPLed code in XFree86, I thought there was one licence for all of the project. OpenSource code perhaps, but not GPLed.
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?

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:What is the issue?

The really interesting bit is that there is a lot of GPL-ed code in XFree.

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

IAAL(ayman)

From the new XFree license (emphasis added):

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer.
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.
4. 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?

GPL, section 6:

" 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."

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?

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?

Here [slashdot.org] is a thread where you can read about why distro makers think that new XFree license is evil.

Re:What is the issue?

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?

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?

Notice the word "only".

Re:What is the issue?

"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":

I'll admit I am ignorant on this subject and I apologize.

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?

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:What is the issue?

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?

Why is this obnoxious?

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?

I understand the philosophical disagreement with this new clause in XFree86 4.4, but I don't think it should be confused with the old BSD "advertising" clause. The latter posed a severe financial impact on each and every advertisement a company might want to deploy. This is simply asking for acknowledgement in the consuming product's documentation. It is a pain to keep track of, but no worse what any author and publisher has to deal with when using the works of others. I don't think acknowledgement in the docs in an unfair expectation.

My two cents.... for all it's worth.

Stph

Re:What is the issue?

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?

Also - if 20 works down the road I am copying and pasting and accidentally miss contributor #3 I can now be sued for copyright infringement.

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?

I think the problem is that if a third-party _adds_ documentation, they would also have to add the line. If you combined code from multiple sources, you would have to comb through each source file to find the appropriate references just to write documentation that you ship with the product. With the GPL, you only have to not mess with the existing copyright info to be okay.

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?

I'm not sure then what they mean by 'incompatible with the GPL'. I've just read the references you gave.

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?

Yet we don't see Linux distributers refusing to include products with those licenses.

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?

"Yet we don't see Linux distributers refusing to include products with those licenses."

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..

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..

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..

The XFree86 people that made this decision have no right to expect that their code will be used by anyone. No-one is shafting them by deciding not to use their product, in the same way that no-one is shafting any company by not using their product.

If Red Hat were shipping XFree86 4.4 without crediting every contributor, then they would be stealing code.

Re:I can understand but..

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:Only to idealogues

The rest of the computing world doesn't care about the community's "idea of Freedom."

That's like saying "The rest of the world doesn't care about copyright, they just want their free MP3s", which is equally true. However, it's contrary to the law.

Regarding Linus, I presume you're talking about BitKeeper, but that is different as he is not redistributing it.

Re:I can understand but..

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..

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 no