Re: Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[Nicolas Boulay <nico@xxxxxxxx>]

Le Mercredi 18 Février 2004 19:24, David Dawes a écrit :
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 09:30:35AM +0000, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
> > Ar an 18ú lá de mí 2, scríobh David Dawes :
> > > Lets face it: Your real objection is to giving credit to XFree86 and
> > > its contributors.  GPL-incompatibility and FUD about FSF-freeness(*) of
> > > the modified licence is just a poor excuse.
> >
> >I think it's unfair to assume that, David, especially since there have
> > been severl reasoned disagreements with your position from people who
> > have been active, useful contributors to XFree86.
>
> The most reasoned disagreement I've seen so far is "change is bad."
>
> Claiming that the new license fits neither the FSF Free Software definition
> or the Open Source Definition when the offending clause is close to that
> in the Apache 1.1 licence, and milder than that in the original BSD
> license, both of which are both FSF-free and OSI-open, is not a reasoned
> disagreement.  It is FUD.

So why don't you reuse the word of those licence  that did not make any 
problem to othre people ?

>
> The GPL-compatibility issue is also FUD because XFree86 has always had
> code under GPL-incompatible licences.  There are more serious problems
> when it comes to strict GPL-compatibility than the modified XFree86
> licence.
>
> My point all along has been that the XFree86 licensing policy has not
> changed.  If it is bad now, it was bad before.  Why wasn't anyone
> complaining before?
>

So the guy from Openbsd, Redhat, Mandrake, Fsf are all fools and did not 
understand the point ?

nicO

_______________________________________________
Forum mailing list
Forum@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum