Re: [XFree86] Announcement: Modification to the base XFree86(TM) license.
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
David Dawes <dawes@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 05:48:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: >>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 ? > > My personal interpretation is that the "software" is the actual binaries > containing the licensed code. Some software includes third-party > acknowledgments in an "about" popup. Some in a banner message at startup, > etc. I think "Alternately" is self-explanatory. > > Regardless of the interpretation of this condition, condition 2, to > which I have seen no objections, requires that the full text of the > license be reproduced in documentation and/or other materials accompanying > the redistribution of binaries. That has the side-effect of reproducing > the statement in condition 3. It seems to me that if a redistibution > has no other third-party acknowledgements, then you're done. If there > are other third-party acknowledgements, then why is it a problem to also > acknowledge XFree86 and its contributors? Nobody objects to condition 2, as this is how just about everybody believes the (old) license to work today. Now, it is condition 3 that seems to cause so much confusion. Might it not be easier to reformulate the condition in a way to make it more easily understood? Something along the lines of "If the redistribution includes third party acknowledgements (in end-user documentation, inside the program etc.), it must include the following acknowledgement: ...". Another thing that might make sense, would be to limit condition 3 to binary-only distributions, i.e. make it a part of condition 2? Anyway I believe we need a distinction between (at the extremes) distributing the code as part of a CD compilation on a magazine and creating a proprietary product based on the code. -Harald -- Harald Nordgård-Hansen, Linpro AS, Wilbergjordet 1, NO-1605 Fredrikstad, Norway Phone/Fax: +47 6935 9255/56 <>< http://harald.nordgard-hansen.net/ _______________________________________________ Forum mailing list Forum@xxxxxxxxxxx http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum
[Photo] [Yosemite] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Samba] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Linux Resources]