XFree86 4.4: List of Rejecting Distributors Grows 682
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."
What is the issue? (Score:4, Interesting)
Steve
I agree. (Score:-1, Interesting)
I can understand but.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Every cloud has a silver lining (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do they have a problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Forking hell? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:What is the issue? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I can understand but.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Ewan
This sucks... (Score:3, Interesting)
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:What is the issue? (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess they have no choice but to change the licence back with very red faces all round!
Mind you, X is an integral portion of desktop *nix - could someone have set this up on purpose?
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: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.
License already been changed/fixed?? (Score:2, Interesting)
So I read some comments and see this [xfree86.org] reference to a mailing list post about some of the licensing issues. In there I see things that don't exist in the license on the XFree86 site (like a reference to clause 6 even though the XF86 license only has 4 clauses).
So what's up?
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.
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:This is what I can't stand about the open sourc (Score:2, Interesting)
nvidia (Score:0, Interesting)
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!"
Re:What is the issue? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I can understand but.. (Score:3, Interesting)
This move is just stupid. It sets back the *nix desktop 10 years. If they don't change Freedesktop is the way to go.
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:How exactly... (Score:3, Interesting)
The advertising clause is considered a further restriction.
Now personally, I do not believe that attribution is any more burdensome than having to make source code publicly available or agreeing to automatically allow your software to be covered by a future revision of the GPL.
Judging by Mr. Stallman's ravacious vanity and thirst for attribution (ie. GNU/*), I find it ironic that the FSF would discourage compulsory attribution.
Re:freedesktop? (Score:2, Interesting)
which is (given that Im doing a lot of 3D stuff) really what I need.
X server vs xlibs (Score:4, Interesting)
This shows how serious OSS is about licensing (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re:I can understand but.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
why not them? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:nvidia (Score:2, Interesting)
Is redhat going to stay with 4.3 5 years from now?
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!
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Question (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What is the issue? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Just the kick we needed? (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Oh great, here we go... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What is the issue? (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed. Many of the 'edge states' of the GPL are not fully understod, and of course there aren't any precedents to have a gander at.
Disagreed. RMS' stated aim with copyleft was to ensure that once software becomes Free, it is Free for ever more. Giving people the freedom to restrict the Freedom of the software is less ethically favourable in that scheme than ensuring Freedom at the expense of freedom - hence the viral clause.
Anyway, I'd be interested to hear the justification for your clauses "as you explicitly stated where the code or binary came from and submitted updates to the software back to the original author or maintainer" - these are as much a restriction of personal freedom as clause 2 of the GPL.
Re:What is the issue? (Score:3, Interesting)
But notice that the new XFree86 license does not require acknowledgements in advertising. They recommend you put it in the documentation (``if any'', so if there's no docs, there doesn't have to be an acknowledgement), and also allow you to put it in the software itself. (I am not exactly sure what that means -- source code? binary? about box? all of them?)
Listing acknowledgements on a TV screen takes precious space. Broadcasting them on radio is awkward. When many acknowlegements must be made, this becomes infeasible. On the other hand, putting acknowledgements in the source, and in about boxes is quite common and not at all disturbing. Even putting them in the documentation is far from outrageous.
I don't think the new license makes XFree86 non-free. The FSF defines free software [gnu.org] as follows:
# The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
# The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
# The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
# The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
All these conditions hold for the new license.
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.
Nitpick (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, having to mentally parse out the valuable info -- "ZAxisMapping = 4.5" -- from the surrounding detritus -- " -- is tiring on the eyes and mind, and all that extra tag junk makes it hard to format all the information in such a way that makes it easy for the eyes to flow over it as you can fit less info that matters per line.
Re:What is the issue? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Oh great, here we go... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Oh great, here we go... (Score:1, Interesting)
Sure, there's IceWM and AbiWord etc., but they're not supplied as the default desktop in any user-friendly, major distro.
The Linux desktop is one of the worst examples of over-engineering in history. I'll still use it, but it's becoming so slow, so bloated, day by day, cutting out 3rd world countries and millions of older systems.
Ack.
XFree Alternatives (Score:2, Interesting)
here [linuxquestions.org]
Re:nvidia (Score:3, Interesting)
I personally see the distributions going with the fdo xserver because a few have already stated that they are switching to the fdo xlibs. I personally predict there will be a fork of xfree4.3 that will basically do mantinence and update drivers and keep it stable till the fdo xserver is ready for prime time. There is a lot of work going into making the fdo X11 distribution much cleaner than that of xfree86. I personally think this switch would have happened in the next year or two anyway, this license change just speeds things up and will only result in xfree86 losing developers much faster.
Re:What is the issue? (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Free Software (Score:3, Interesting)
even binaries of these, left alone the ability
to install them by means of MirPorts.
Hint: we are distributing the advertising clause,
and we need not care about licence compatibility
as long as neither licence explicitly forbids
that linking.
Re:Only to idealogues (Score:4, Interesting)
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:1, Interesting)
Face it -- The FSF didn't bother to check.
Recently the Debian people have actually started to look at the stuff that comes in the XFree tarball and have found many, many interesting problems.
Re:Oh great, here we go... (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't look that hard to read or that excessively verbose (except for the end tags) to me.
Oh, and you can't have attributes in end tags so your example XML wasn't valid XML anyway.
Re:What is the issue? (Score:3, Interesting)
Where is XOuvert in all of this? (Score:3, Interesting)
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:I can understand but.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Uhh, but you realize that using XFree86 4.4 would actually be "stealing" code?
If a distributor ships a GPLed software that was linked with code from XFree86 4.4, he has to violate the license of one of the two programs. Either the resulting code is shipped under the GPL, but that license doesn't include the acknowledgement requirement of XFree86. Or the resulting code is shipped with the additional restriction of requiring the acknowledgement, but then the distributor is violating the GPL which doesn't allow adding any restrictions.
Also, what you've said in a previous posting in this thread ("The FSF/GPL community can't be bothered to give you credit for your work.") is complete bullshit. Take a look at clause 2.c) of the GPL.
This issue isn't at all about not wanting to give credit. This is about not wanting to violate the copyrights of any contributors, which among other things means not to combine things that have incompatible licenses. I think this whole mess is a great counterpoint to SCO's FUD.
Re:The reason OSS isn't taken seriously... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Is the GPL license a problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this really a problem? You cannot statically link GPL-incompatible software to GPLed libraries, because that makes the result a derived work. However, in this case, the linking works the other way around, making GTK and Qt derived from xlib, whose license does not have the viral nature.
Even if the GPL somehow prevents GTK and Qt linking to a GPL-incompatible xlib, an exception clause could be made. IIRC, bison and flex use such a clause to allow the code they generate to be used in non-GPLed projects.