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

[hnh@xxxxxxxxx (Harald Nordgård-Hansen)]

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