Re: License issues

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]




On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 06:21:16PM -0600, Ryan Underwood wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 02:14:27AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > 
> > > There was nothing changed.  It was a clarification of existing policy.
> > 
> > Sorry, but this is simply not true. 
> 
> What has changed?  If you were using the X server in a GPL project, you
> were already violating the GPL.  Making the license that applied to

But unknowingly so. We were lead to believe that the advertizing clause
had been droped from that part of the code which was covered by the BSD
licence.

> parts of the X server apply to the whole of it has changed nothing.

This licence has never before applied to parts of the X server.

> > The concerns are about xlibs and the other client side libraries. As i
> > understand, apart from the licence faq mention, XFree86 has not made a
> > definitive commitment to not change this in the future, and this creates
> > some concern. This may be comming after a future meating of the XFree86
> > deciding comitee or whatever though.
> 
> It doesn't matter if they haven't committed to not change the license in
> the future.  We can argue theoretical cases all day long (What if
> XFree86 was bought by MICROSOFT??!?!?) but what good does this really do
> anyone?  Right now, the xlibs issue is moot, as it has always been.
> When the evil David Dawes and his cronies concoct some plan to take over
> the world and change the xlibs license to something GPL-incompatible
> later, that would be the time to be concerned about it.  By that time,
> maybe the GPL is revised, or dynamic linking has precedent in court to
> not cause a work to be a derived work.  Who knows?

What are you speaking like that to me ? I am taking enough heat already
from trying to defend the new licence in the outside world without
needing to get such BS from you.

I do believe and have always believed that the new licence is a mistake,
and that it should not have made, but it is a licence that is in the
hands of the XFree86 project to make, thus quickening their path to
obsolescence probably, but still it is their (your ?) decision, and they
are free to make it.

But claiming that when i contributed code the whole of XFree86 was so
licence encoumbered is a lie, or at least it was not openly known and
openly told to would-be contributors.

> > > The people who are excluding XFree86 on license terms are simply being
> > > zealots and resistant to a perceived "change", when in fact there has
> > 
> > Yeah, i think you are living outside of reality, please open your eyes.
> 
> If you want to open them for me, point out exactly what has effectively
> changed. I have been following this discussion for weeks, and throughout
> all the flamewars I have been able to deduce the following:
> 
> 1) XFree86's license is not GPL-compatible

Ok, this is not nice, but as long as it doesn't apply to the client side
library, this is no major problem. Some theoretical concerns do exist
about the SDK though, but as it is mostly unused, it is of no concern.

> 2) XFree86 has always allowed contributors to license their works in
> whatever manner they wish that conforms to XFree86 licensing policy.
> This includes demanding credit for their work.

Ok, fine. 

> 3) The new license does not apply to client-side libraries, only the X
> server.

So, why are you screaming on me ? Is this not all i have ever said, and
was i not on the side of the XFree86 project on this issue ?

Seriously i don't understand this whole issue anymore.

Friendly,

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

[X.Org]     [XFree86]     [XFree86 Discussion]     [XFree86 Newbie]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Samba]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Resources]


  Powered by Linux