Re: License furor

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 01:03:57PM -0400, William M. Quarles wrote:
> Marc Aurele La France wrote:
> >On Mon, 24 May 2004, Vincent Stemen wrote:
> >>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.
> 
> I'm a defender of XFree86 in this situation, and unfortunately I'm going 
> to agree with Rich and Vincent on this one: even if XFree86 would never 
> pursue such a case, it is a trap that they would not want to risk, and 
> distributors would do their best to comply with the license and avoid 
> the trap (such as in the popups example), or not use XFree86 and avoid 
> the trap (such as in the reality that most distributors have left 
> XFree86 behind).  Clause 3 is too strict and needs to be loosened (to 
> remove the trap) or removed altogether (to bring back GPL compatibility).
> 
> I've contacted the Free Software Foundation, and they have a lawyer who 
> is very familiar with open-source software and uses it himself.  I'm 
> sure they've already consulted him on the XFree86 1.1 License and its 
> GPL (in)compatibility.  I'll check on that, though.  However, Clause 3 
> is an additional restriction not found in the GPL, just as the similar 
> clause in the Apache license is, therefore (as most are claiming) it 
> can't be GPL compatible.
> 
> As for removing all references to GPL (in)compatibility, it is still 
> important for the web pages to point out that the client-side libraries 
> are still under the 1.0 License.

Notice that XFree86 has agreed (or did this change in the last two month ?) 
to not put any part of the x libraries, who will be linked to client
programs, under the GPL incompatible licence. So, as long as the XFree86
project indeed respect this, then the GPL incompatibility of the XFree86
1.1 licence is no problem.

That said, i believe this move has broken the thrust with the XFree86
project, and that no serious linux distribution will be going with the
XFree86 codebase, well apart from a splattering of minor distribs who
have already chosen XFree86 4.4, and that have been touted as a PR move
on the XFree86 web pages. I believe this whole issue was a mistake for
the XFree86 project, and have said so vocally. It was a mistake, but a
mistake that was theirs to make though.

Friendly,

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