Re: License issue, and a possible solution

[Kurt Fitzner <kfitzner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan Coopersmith wrote:

> > Think of it this way.  Would people be paying as much for products 
> > like Hummingbird or other commercial X servers if those companies had 
> > to acknowledge that they stripped much of their code from XFree86?  
>
> If they are using code from XFree86, they already had to acknowledge it
> in their copyright statements.  Acknowledging it even more wouldn't change
> how much most people would be willing to pay for a product from any of the
> commercial X-for-Windows vendors.

It's a perceived value, issue, I think.  What is the perceived value of 
a product that Hummingbird produces, vs. the perceived value of a 
product that XFree86 writes most of, and that Hummingbird slaps PC 
compatibility onto?

> > In GPL, commercial companies wouldn't be able to use the code at all.
>
> Completely untrue.

<sigh> Ok, technically correct, yes.  But companies tend to shy away 
from using code in commercial products that would require them to 
publish the source code.  If people could compile and run Staroffice for 
themselves, would there be any reason to use it over OpenOffice.org?

> > With BSD (and the similar 1.0 XFree license), commercial companies can 
> > use the code, and hide teh fact to their customers.
>
> Again completely untrue.

And again, you are technically correct.  There's the "advertising 
clause"ish type statement in old BSD and the XFree86 1.0.  But it's a 
lot easier to hide the fact that XFree86 code is being used in a prudt 
when all you need to do is stick some copyright notice somewhere in some 
text file, rather than if you have to put something visible in an about 
box or similar spot in the GUI.

> Sun already includes XFree86 copyright notices and acknowledgements of
> various other forms in both Solaris and the Java Desktop System for 
> Linux, so you can count us out of your conspiracy theory.
>
> A simple search for "XFree86" on http://www.sun.com will find pages 
> crediting XFree86 in various ways, such as:
> http://developers.sun.com/solaris/developer/support/driver/tools/video/video-index.html 

The above page, and several others in the search you suggested, talks 
about the XF86 video driver porting kit, or mentions that XFree86 is "an 
open source implementation of the X-window system".  I haven't gone 
through the list exhaustively, but no page I've read It never actually 
says that XF86 code is used inside the Sun X server.

Now, let me backpedal just a little.  That is, I don't really believe 
that there is seriously a conspiracy - which is why I put "conspiracy 
theory" in quotes (Canadians' attemps humour sometimes fly under 
people's radar - as opposed to British humour which slaps people in the 
face with herrings).  That being said, however, for all the companies to 
migrate their support away from XF86, there has to be a perceived value 
in the change.  And the only perceived value I can see is in the only 
real difference, which is the license.  This means that putting 
"Portions of the Sun (HP/Hummingbird/etc) X Server are based on code 
from the XFree86 Project , Inc" in some about box was so much of a 
problem for some people, that they were willing to fund the starting of 
an entirely new project to get around it.

Sun is in it to make money.  Publicly traded companies exist to make 
money for the shareholders.  Therefore, it looks to me like someone at 
Sun thought that the above about box would "cost" Sun more money than 
funding a new project.

Perhaps I'm reading the situation entirely wrongly.  But while I believe 
that the license change was unnecesary (and perhaps unwise), I also 
believe that the reaction to it was completely out of proportion to the 
change.

If I am reading this wrongly, I would very much appreciate knowing what 
all the fuss is really about.

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