License issues

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

Quote from Ryan Underwood, (nemesis-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx).
> As it is now, the XFree86 license reflects the "worst-case" licenses
> that were already being used by individual contributors, and to me it
> does nothing but make clear what distributors must do in order to comply
> with the license of the entire XFree86 distribution.  Distributors whining
> about the license "change" conveniently ignore the fact that they were
> already distributing code in violation of the contributors' licenses.
> If you don't believe me,
> grep -ir "acknowledg[e]*ment" xc
> , and see for yourself.

That is a really misleading post.

Most other posters seem to be discussing the fact that the V1.1
license is being applied to some code for which the project holds the
copyright, and was previously under the V1.0 license.

On the other hand, you raise an interesting point about distributors
being in violation of some of the existing licenses, and suggest that
the new license makes things clearer to them.

Just because legacy code has advertising clauses, it doesn't make it
any less obnoxious to add them to new code.

So, whilst your views may well be accurate, I find it difficult to see
what they have got to do with what we were discussing.  Unless you are
making the claim that all of the code which has been moved from the
1.0 license to the 1.1 license was already linked to code which had an
advertising clause already, that it should never have been linked with
code under the 1.0 license in the first place, and that there was no
real choice but to move to a 1.1 style license.

I doubt that.

Forum mailing list

[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