Re: License issues

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:01:55PM -0600, Ryan Underwood wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 06:37:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> By whom?

By everyone.

> > > 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.
> 
> WTF?  I think you are taking personal offense way too easily, but that's
> just my opinion.

Well, like said, i think it was a mistake for XFree86 to change the
licence, i also believe that it was done because of some hidden personal
motives and power grab attempt, which are too ugly to be held in public,
but i always thought that it is the right of the XFree86 Project, as
copyright holder of the code, to change the licence to anything they see
fit. I have also endured many hardship from other people because of my
defense of this.

And now, you are openly lying to us, trying to say that there is no
change, that this licence has always been the XFree86 licence, which is
clearly false, and contrary to what everyone has been lead to believe
about the XFree86 code base all those years, and one of the reason why i
choose to donate my free time and code to the project back then, even if
i am no more very active lately.

This kind of behavior from your part is unaceptable, and, i don't think
lying to yourself like you do will bring you anything. And i especially
think that pissing of those that are supportive of the XFree86 Project
in this issue is going to help in any way.

So, i am going to ask from you (or the rest of the XFree86 Project if
need be) that you stop outwardly lying, and at least stand behind this
licence change, and take full responsability for the problems that it is
causing.

> > 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.
> 
> No, it is not my decision.  But it's not going to halt any contributions
> that I make, because I think it's not a big a problem as Slashdot types

Yeah, sure whatever. Putting every fault to those slashdot bastards
would not absolve you.

> have been making of it.  Certainly, there are some issues, but I think
> this is a special case.  This is XFree86, one of the largest, oldest,
> most consistently active distributed development codebases in the

Yeah, and this licence change is killing its future. That is a reality,
and despite that, i have been supportive, because i still had hope, and
because i believe you have the right to the code base, including the
right to go hang yourself. But i assuredly didn't expect you to take
such revisionist attitudes and to not stand behind your changes, and
openly lie to your supporters.

> history of software engineering, not Joe's Random Weblog App or Foo
> Mixer 0.1.  Furthermore, the "problem" is not that it's non-free, it's
> just that 
> 1) it isn't free enough to get along with the GPL, even though exception
> was made for client side libraries

Yeah. 

> 2) It requires distributors to credit the project, which is an
> inconvenience.

Yeah.

Whatever, i have no fault with that, i only have fault with you saying
that this is no change, and that this was always so, which is clearly a
lie, either a lie today, or a lie the day i contributed my code to the
project.

> Put in perspective of the amount of work that has gone into the XFree86
> codebase and continues to go into it, it doesn't seem too much of an
> issue.  But you are free to work on and recommend whatever you want to
> other people.

It has nothing to do with that, but to do with thrust. I have affronted
the rage of the zealots for you in my community, and now, i get such BS
from you, some outward and shameless lie, that this was always the case,
showing that not only you have no understanding of the issue, but you
have an utter lack of respect to others.

> > 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.
> 
> Your code is not license encumbered unless the copyright was assigned to
> the XFree86 project.  If you retain the copyright, then you are free to
> relicense it to others on whatever terms you wish.  If you didn't retain
> the copyright....

Whatever. I would never believe you again though.

> > > 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 ?
> 
> Who is screaming?  I thought we were having a civil discussion and
> disagreeing about it.  Is that not possible?

I don't think that lies are part of a civil discussion, so ...

> > Seriously i don't understand this whole issue anymore.
> 
> I think we understand it, and are on different sides.  There is nothing
> wrong with that.

So, please tell me what side you are on, and what are the hidden reasons
behind this whole mess. From whom do you think that you have been
miscredited, and in retaliation to which actions did the licence change
take place.

This whole issue has been hidden, and ever since the big discussion that
started this forum more than a year ago, there was never a report done
on how things were going, until the licence change announcement.

Like said, if you feel that my future contribution is no more wanted in
the XFree86 Project, please say so, and i will not bother you anymore.

And yes, Ryan, i take it to you personally.

Friendly,

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