Re: License issue, and a possible solution
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
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.
"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."
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" :-).
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.
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"
"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.
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.
[Photo] [Yosemite] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Samba] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Linux Resources]