Re: License furor | |
| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] | |
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 03:48:13PM -0400, William M. Quarles wrote:
> 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?
Read the thread where we discussed this about a month ago near the end
of April. The exact problem was discussed in detail. It looks very
similar at first glance, but the following statement in the new
XFree86 license makes it very different.
"in the same form and location as other such third-party
acknowledgments"
I know of no other open source license that contains this condition.
As I said before, that is a legal booby trap where no distributor of
open source software can guarantee they are not violating the license.
> Did the XFree86 project consult with a lawyer of the FSF before
> posting the claim that the new license is GPL incompatible?
That seems to be one of the problems. Some of the complaints I saw
were that the XFree86 project sprung this license on the community
without consulting anybody or putting it up to vote, and the majority
of the community is against it.
> I agree that condition 3 might be a bit redundant, but I don't see how
> that affects the GPL compatibility.
>From studying the licenses, here is how it looks to me.
I believe the reason it is incompatible is because of the restriction
I mentioned above. In order to not violate the new XFree86 license, a
combined work would have to apply the new license to GPL code which
would put conditions on it that are not in the GPL license. In the
GPL, in section 2B, it says,
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
If you apply the new XFree86 license, it would no longer be "under the
terms of this License" as the GPL states.
A less restrictive license such as the BSD, original MIT license, or a
public domain license, is compatible because their terms do not
conflict.
In a combined work, you must always use the most restrictive license.
For example if you combined GPL code with FreeBSD code, you would have
to distribute it under the GPL license. The FreeBSD license states,
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
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.
As you can see, the only restriction is that you include the copyright
information. The more restrictive GPL also requires you to include
the copyright information so the FreeBSD license would be satisfied.
They are compatible because there is no conflict.
> 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
I see nothing hypocritical about it. Of course they are going to
attribute the XFree86 project because it contains all the code up to
the time of the split. They are saying they are not going to include
any code after that point that is under the new license.
> 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.
--
Vincent Stemen
Avoid the VeriSign/Network Solutions domain registration trap!
Read how Network Solutions (NSI) was involved in stealing our domain name.
http://www.InetAddresses.net
_______________________________________________
Forum mailing list
Forum@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum
[XFree86]
[XFree86]
[XFree86 Newbie]
[IETF Annouce]
[Security]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Yosemite]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Samba]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Linux Resources]
|