"thorny" GLX license

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]




The question of compliance with SGI's GLX license has been mentioned
several times in this mailing list over the past several months, but to
my knowledge it hasn't been addressed in any level of detail.  So, here
is my take on the situation.

First, some disclaimers:

    1.	I am not a lawyer.

    2.	I do not speak officially for X.org.

Next, the "Notice":

--------------

License Applicability. Except to the extent portions of this file are made
subject to an alternative license as permitted in the SGI Free Software
License B, Version 1.1 (the "License"), the contents of this file are
subject only to the provisions of the License. You may not use this file
except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License
at Silicon Graphics, Inc., attn: Legal Services, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway,
Mountain View, CA 94043-1351, or at: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/FreeB

Note that, as provided in the License, the Software is distributed on an
"AS IS" basis, with ALL EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS
DISCLAIMED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND
CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, SATISFACTORY QUALITY, FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT.

Original Code. The Original Code is: [name of software, version number, and
release date], developed by Silicon Graphics, Inc. The Original Code is
Copyright (c) [dates of first publication, as appearing in the Notice in
the Original Code] Silicon Graphics, Inc. Copyright in any portions created
by third parties is as indicated elsewhere herein. All Rights Reserved.
Additional Notice Provisions: [such additional provisions, if any, as
appear in the Notice in the Original Code under the heading "Additional
Notice Provisions"]

---------------

The web site mentioned above contains links to the license in .doc format
and in .ps format, but gv and gs have trouble with the latter, and
I don't have StarOffice on my system, but here's a copy of the part
which I believe to be in question:

---------------

3. Redistributions.

    3.1. Retention of Notice/Copy of License. The Notice set forth in
    Exhibit A, below, must be conspicuously retained or included in any and
    all redistributions of Covered Code. For distributions of the Covered
    Code in source code form, the Notice must appear in every file that can
    include a text comments field; in executable form, the Notice and a
    copy of this License must appear in related documentation or collateral
    where the Recipient's rights relating to Covered Code are described.
    Any Additional Notice Provisions which actually appears in the Original
    Code must also be retained or included in any and all redistributions
    of Covered Code.

---------------

As far as X.org's compliance with the license is concerned, I don't see
any problem.  As far as I know, they have not removed the "Notice" from
any of the GLX source files, and they don't distribute their software in
binary form, so the condition on including a copy of the "License" does
not apply to them.

As far as I know, there is no "baby-sitting" clause requiring X.org to
take active steps to ensure that their distributors obey the terms
(although if they were to have a LICENSE file in some clearly visible
place, comparable to xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/doc/LICENSE,
then that would be very helpful IMHO).

As far as distributors are concerned, Debian (at least) seems to be in
compliance, since their files

	/usr/share/doc/xfree86-common/copyright
	/usr/share/doc/xserver-common/copyright

(and possibly others) contain copies of the SGI GLX license.

I wasn't able to find such a file on Red Hat, but my knowledge of their
setup is minimal.

	!!! HOWEVER !!!

I don't see how the condition

    3.	The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if
	any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product
	includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc
	(http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", in the same
	place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately,
	this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the
	same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments.

would lead to improved compliance in the above GLX license *at all*.
It seems to be completely separate.

Can somebody please explain what the two have to do with each other?

And wouldn't a condition

    X.	Copyright conditions imposed by any contributed software included
	with XFree86 must also be obeyed (unless said contributions are
	removed).  This includes, but is not restricted to, the list of
	software licenses in the file xc/blah/blah/blah/LICENSE.

be a better and more direct way of achieving this goal?

Sincerely,


Paul Vojta
vojta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Forum mailing list
Forum@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum

[X.Org]     [XFree86]     [XFree86 Discussion]     [XFree86 Newbie]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Samba]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Resources]


  Powered by Linux