Re: License furor

"William M. Quarles" <walrus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Fri, 21 May 2004 15:48:13 -0400

Someone respond to this man!  He's making some good discussion here.
I don't understand what the problem is with the new license either.  In 
comparing it to the modified BSD license, which supposedly is GPL 
compatible, the XFree86 1.1 License looks almost exactly the same.  Why 
is it specifically that the XFree86 1.1 License is GPL incompatible, 
whereas the BSD license is not?  Did the XFree86 project consult with a 
lawyer of the FSF before posting the claim that the new license is GPL 
incompatible?
I agree that condition 3 might be a bit redundant, but I don't see how 
that affects the GPL compatibility.
Here is somehting hypocritical from the X.org release notes:
"Due to the new XFree86 1.1 license introduced in XFree86 4.4 (final),
later additions to XFree86 may not be incorporated into our codebase."
However, later in the release notes, you find this:
"This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc
(http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors."
Holy shite, they almost met the terms of the license! but probably 
intentionally changed the acknowledgement statement to look less 
hypocritical to passive readers.  Catch-22, they look more hypocritical 
to people who know what is going on.
Please, discussion, ensue.
Peace,
William
Kurt Fitzner wrote:

Hello,
I'm new to this list, and I hope you'll forgive me if this topic has 
been covered ad nauseum, but I'm having a hard time finding lucid 
discussion of the license issue.  The signal-to-noise ratio off of 
search engines is pretty low right now.
It seems, from what I can find, that the major kerfuffle is over 
condition 3 of the license requiring that end-user documentation have an 
attribution.  Honestly, I really don't have to much issue with the new 
license personally, but it seems to me that you accomplish exactly the 
same end by dropping condition 3 altogether, and simply putting the same 
statement ("This product includes software developed by the XFree86 
Project, Inc and its contributors") directly into the top of the license 
  agreement.  Condition 2 of the license, then, would then act as 
condition 3 as well.
Since the wanted attribution is now right in the copyright notice, and 
condition 2 requires the copyright notice and license ("this list of 
conditions") be retained, it would have exactly the same effect.  This 
way, the statement would then have to appear wherever the software was 
distributed, which would strengthen the attribution, but it would be no 
different from the GPL which requires that copies of its license be 
distributed with GPL works too.
I have run Linux since the primary "distribution" was SLS.  That was in 
the days of XFree86 1.3 or so, I think.  I have never, ever, not known 
that my X-Windows was Xfree86.  I think there are few in the 
Linux/BSD/GNU world that don't know.  I would hate for an issue like 
this to cause a fork - which is what it looks like a lot of people are 
talking about right now.  We're never going to go back to the "good ole 
days" when people, as a rule, downloaded and installed XF86 versions 
themselves.  Some people will.  Most will use distributions.  I would 
sure like to see this issue settled without causing a mass migration to 
X.org, or to a fork in XFree.
	Kurt Fitzner

p.s. Here is how I see the new license...

Version 1.2 Sample...
This product includes software developed by the XFree86 Project, Inc and 
its contributors.  Copyright (C) yyyy-yyyy The XFree86 Project, Inc. All 
rights reserved.
     Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person 
obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files 
(the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including 
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, 
distribute, sublicence, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to 
permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to 
the following conditions:
        1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above 
copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer.

        2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above 
copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer 
in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the 
distribution, and in the same place and form as other copyright, license 
and disclaimer information.

        3. <deleted>

        4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of The XFree86 
Project, Inc shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote 
the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written 
authorization from The XFree86 Project, Inc.
     THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED 
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN 
NO EVENT SHALL THE XFREE86 PROJECT, INC OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE 
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR 
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF 
SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS 
INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN 
CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) 
ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF 
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

_______________________________________________

Forum mailing list

Forum@xxxxxxxxxxx

http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum

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