On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 05:45:21PM -0600, Kurt Fitzner wrote: > Vincent wrote: > > >Actually, I do not believe the heat is because of GPL purism. It is > >because combining it with GPL code or creating any kind of combined > >work is a violation of the license. Also, based on the copyright, any > >binary written for X that has internal third party credits, such as in > >a pop up window, and does not credit the XFree86 project in the same > >place, is in violation of the new license. > > Not true. Since the client libraries aren't affected, nothing changes > for any X software. The only thing affected is binary-only > distributions of the X server itself. Please show me a quote from the actual license that says this. Also, even if the client libraries are not affected, in order to use them, you must include the related headers which are being changed over to the new license, which would create a derived work where your application includes code with the new copyright. Again, I see no provisions in the licenses to accommodate this. > >As a distributer of third > >party software, you take on this responsibility and are really leaving > >your pants down. If you think a free software group/company/etc won't > >turn on you down the road and use any weapons at their disposal > >against you if they decide they do not like you for some reason, just > >re-visit the Caldera story. This is why we have chosen to go with the > >X.org branch for our projects. > > > > > > >>While we don't consider the license a problem (especially w/ the widely > >>unkown fact that the client side libraries aren't affected by the > >>change), we think > > > > > >See, this is part of the problem. It would not be widely unknown if > >it stated it in the license. If this is their true intentions, then > >why doesn't it? When you are signing a contract, for example, no > >matter what the other party claims their intentions to are, it is what > >it says on that piece of paper that counts. Most of the mainstream > >software distributors see this and this is why they immediately > >branched. > > Sorry, this is too clever for me to grok. "It would not be widely known > if it stated it in the license" ??? It is what it states in the license > that counts, as far as I know. You misread my statement. Please re-groke the word "unknown" :-). > > >In reality the client side libraries ARE affected by the change. That > >is why they make the statement in their license FAQ, > > The client libraries would be affected by the change, if in fact they > were changing. Since they aren't changing, they're not affected. The most restrictive license applies to a binary distribution because the files are not all distributed separately, each with their own license. This is why it is considerd GPL incompatible. Because it would force distribution of GPL'd code under additional restrictions when they are combined. Also, it is not just the libraries. I have already seen headers that have been changed to the new license and you cannot link to libraries without including the related headers so it would again violate the license. > > "To avoid issues with application programs such as KDE and GNOME > > and other X-based applications, that are licensed under the GPL, > > the 1.1 license is not being applied to client side libraries." > > > >If the license did not affected them, then they should be able to > >apply the license. Hence, a quote from my earlier posting which was > >directed at the XFree86 project: > > > > "This is essentially saying that all distributions including > > software under the GPL or similar license that is linked to > > XFree86 libraries and includes XFree86 headers will be in > > violation of the copyright, that you realize this, and that you > > are choosing at your own discretion when and where to enforce it." > > Not exactly true. They are not chosing where to enforce the change, > they are chosing where to enact the change. The way it is worded above > seems to accuse them of being hypocrites. > > Otherwise, the statement is essentially (from what I understand) true. > XFree recognizes that the GPL license is not compatible with the new 1.1 > XFree license. To avoid affecting all programs that link against X, > they chose where to apply the license. Yes, that is exactly what I said. "they choose where to apply the license". Ok, I said "enforce". If that choice of word was ambiguous to you then I will say "apply" :-). The license itself does not restrict that. If that choice were handed over to Microsoft because Microsoft bought The XFree86 Project, Inc, do you think they would hesitate to "apply" the license everywhere the licenses gives them the right to? Yep, SCO is really holding back for the benifit of free software :-). You know they didn't used to be part of Caldera and Caldera was considered a trusted main stream Linux distribution. > >Even if David Dawes has good intentions, it is just as high of a risk > >re-distributing under a copyright that you cannot guarantee compliance > >to. > > > >Scenario: > > > > Let's say the entire free software community accepted the new 1.1 > > license and it spread throughout most of the X code over a couple > > of years. Then a big company such as Microsoft came in and > > offered a few million dollars to buy The XFree86 Project, Inc. and > > they sold out. Most people do when offered enough to retire on > > the rest of their lives and it would be pocket change for such a > > big company. Do you think Microsoft would have the best interest > > of the open software community in mind when choosing how to > > exercise the license? Since X is one of the most integral parts > > of open software and bringing it to the desktop of the average > > user, they would have the entire open source community by the > > balls. > > Ok, so what if this happens? As all client libraries are under the > original license, nothing would happen if Microsoft bought XFree86. > They couldn't go and retroactively change licenses prior to the > purchase. So, no program that links to X libraries is affected. The First, if binaries only are distributed then, again, these binaries are linked with code and headers that have the new licenses. I looked at the diff of files that have already been updated with the new license and a lot of the headers are included. > above looks like a lot of FUD to me. Perhaps you can explain, point by > point, what the danger would be - and please refer to the text in the > actual license. >From one of my previous postings: We believe the entire problem lies in the two statements, "in the same place and form as other copyright, license and disclaimer information" and "in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments" It is "the same form and location" that makes the new license very different from all other open source licenses that we know of. As a distributer, you cannot guarantee this kind of compliance for every application you include. > >I also find it interesting that when David Dawes was directly asked in > >one of the earlier postings for examples of where the X licenses has > >been abused or where anybody had tried to falsely claim credit for the > >code, I never saw any reply. Please feel free to direct me to it if I > >overlooked it. Since author accreditation was their whole excuse for > >the license change, I am in question of their true motives. > > The whole point is, they'd never know. Who knows if Hummingbird ripped > off Xfree code. I dunno. Do you? No, I don't, and that is why I questioned their motives. If while looking at every commercial system out there that includes Xwindows, there are no known violations, then why the sudden concern now after all these years? Xwindows and BSD have been going strong for all these years without having such a license restriction. Since it is unlikely that vendors could fully comply with the new license as it is worded, it opens the door for a major legal attack, in the future, much worse the the SCO one. > > If you are questioning their motives, perhaps you can offer a suggestion > as to what you think the "real" motives are. This new license is a perfect setup to have everybody violating the license so that a company such as SCO or Microsoft can step in in the future and slap down all commercial distributions of free software. We are already seeing the first attempt at this with the SCO/Caldera lawsuits. This situation could turn into something far worse. Obviously we are not the only ones who see this going by the response of the other major Linux and BSD vendors. Regardless of their current actual motives today, money talks. Again look at Caldera. If The XFree86 project is offered enough money, their motives could easily change or they could sell and loose control of how the license is applied or enforced. > Personally, I really see little need for the new license myself. I > don't know what happened to spark it, or why it was made. Frankly, > though, I can't see what all the fuss is about. Since I'd rather see > Xfree86 in distributions than X.org (as Xfree86 is much more stable at > the moment), I would like to see some sort of movement on the license > issue. But, still, I think something else that Mr. Dawes said is > probably true... and that is, that there were distributions > contemplating a change before the license issue came around. I think a > lot of people are using the license issue as an excuse - because really, > very very litle has changed. It is possible they were contemplating the change already but I don't think that is the issue. I see this license as a very big change compared to the original MIT license. We had not even considered changing from XFree86 before this license issue. And we are strong believers in giving credit where credit is due. Vincent _______________________________________________ Forum mailing list Forum@xxxxxxxxxxx http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum