Re: Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

["Kendall Bennett" <KendallB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

David Dawes <dawes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > 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."

No, the most reasoned argument so far is that this attribution clause 
puts a major burden on anyone wishing to distribute binaries built from 
XFree86. It does not seem like such a big burden right now when there is 
only one 'contributor' to be attributed (The XFree86 Project), but it 
gets ridiculously out of control 5 years down the track when now there 
are hundreds of contributors all requiring attribution if they have 
chosen to use the same license. If a vendor shipping these binaries 
forgets to attribute *one* developer, they have *violated the license 
agreement*! Most vendors will simply not be willing to take that risk.

This exact problem is also why the original BSD license was changed in 
the first place, and the reason the GPL licenses do not include 
advertising clauses. The only requirement is that attribution cannot be 
removed *from the source code*.

One thing that none of us have yet to see is a valid explanation for is 
exactly *why* this license change was warranted in the first place. You 
say it is necessary, but fail to back it up with any evidence to suggest 
that XFree86 Project Inc copyrighted code has been used in violation of 
it's license, or that there are cases where the code has been used and 
the XFree86 Project Inc feels they have been done wrong because they were 
not attributed properly.

Can you provide us with clear examples?

More importantly why is it now suddenly such a desireable thing for the 
XFree86 Project Inc. to be attributed in end user documentation when the 
previous licenses have been accepted for many, many years? I always 
though the whole point of the MIT/X11 licensing was that it was *OK* for 
developers to use the source code for any purpose, whether Open Source or 
proprietary. Many a developer has been chased off the XFree86 developer 
mailing lists in the past when they got upset that someone might use code 
they contributed for proprietary purposes. Anyone contributing to the 
project *knows* that is acceptable and are happy with that condition. If 
not, they shouldn't be contributing.

However now you are trying to change the rules and say 'you can use it, 
but you sure better tell people I wrong some of that code!'. What we want 
to know is why is this now suddenly necessary?

> 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. 

I fail to see what the Apache 1.1 license has to do with anything XFree86 
related. Nor what the original BSD license has to do with it. The BSD 
license was *CHANGED*, specifically to avoid these issues. As Richard has 
already stated, when the BSD license change occurred it covered *all* 
existing code under the existing BSD license. So if there is code in 
XFree86 that is under the original BSD license and originally came from 
BSD, it can be changed to the new license (provided of course any 
additional authors also agree, if there are any).

So far the only FUD I am seeing is coming from the XFree86 Project Inc. 
FUD because you still won't give a valid reason for why this license 
needed to be changed in the first place.

> 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? 

Because it *IS* a lot worse now than it was before. Significantly worse. 
Why can't you see that?

Regards,

---
Kendall Bennett
Chief Executive Officer
SciTech Software, Inc.
Phone: (530) 894 8400
http://www.scitechsoft.com

~ SciTech SNAP - The future of device driver technology! ~

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