Re: License furor

[Marc Aurele La France <tsi@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 24 May 2004, Vincent Stemen wrote:

> Yes, I seem to remember seeing other comments comparing it to the
> Apache license but, it is definitely not the same.  The Apache license
> says,

>     3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution,
>        if any, must include the following acknowledgment:
>           "This product includes software developed by the
>            Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/)."
>        Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself,
>        if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.

> This is basically the same as the BSD license.  The statement, "if and
> wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear" option is
> very similar sounding as the new XFree86 license, except, in the
> Apache license, you have the alternative option of including it in the
> end-user documentation without conditions of where and in what form it
> is in.

> That "same place and form" statement in the XFree86-1.1 license is
> what concerns us.  If you are re-distributing free software and any of
> the thousands of X applications that contains any code from the
> XFree86 project has a pop up attributing third party software and not
> the XFree86 project, then no matter what acknowledgments you include
> in the documentation with your distribution, you are violating the
> copyright because it is not in the same form (not in the pop up
> window).

That's an interesting interpretation, but somewhat off-base.  The 1.1 license
places onus on redistributors, and, as one of such, you would not be the first
in line, if at all, should you integrate an application that does not properly
acknowledge its own sources in its popups.

That's assuming, of course, that such an application exists, and that, as Rich
points out, XFree86 has the wherewithal to pursue you all over hell's
half-acre.

Why do you feel the need to point out such a stretch?  This is telling in and
of itself.  After all, the alleged GPL incompatibility was first asserted, and
then was a self-fulfilling circular argument built to sustain that assertion.
That this assertion is foremost a business decision seems a tough fact few are
willing to contend with.  Frankly, I'd sooner remove all references to this
incompatibility from our web pages and documentation.

But the saddest thing about all this brouhaha isn't that this assertion was
ever made, nor its consequences, nor how it is supported, nor that many have
been hood-winked into believing and promoting it, and nor even that similar
noise isn't being made about certain other licenses in the source tree.

Instead, XFree86 seems to have ended up with the dubious distinction of being
the only Open Software project actively resisting the greed that has become
addicted to it.  For this "crime" we are berated.  Go figure.

And to those who now believe XFree86 to have become irrelevant:  what
conveniently short memories!  XFree86 was there when the business concerns that
now divide the X world decided to drop the ball, and it will be there again.

The current situation is but one phase of a never-ending cycle.  The difference
this time is that XFree86 isn't as willing to disappear as MIT's involvement
was.

Please take your FUD show elsewhere.

Now, where was I?  Oh yeah.  I was coding...

Marc.

--
Marc Aurele La France
XFree86 developer and VP.  ATI driver and X server internals.

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