IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New So much for XFree86 4.4
[link|http://linuxtoday.com/developer/2004021803026NWDTLL|http://linuxtoday.co...04021803026NWDTLL]

None of the major distros will be including XFree86 with the new license.

The licence, first announced on January 29 by XFree86 president David Dawes, is technically known as the 1.1 edition of the XFree86 license. License 1.1 was intended, according to Dawes' announcement, to "strengthen the 'except claim you wrote it' clause of the Project's licensing philosophy regarding binary distributions of XFree86."

Specifically, the license now requires that full credit be given in source and binary code to the XFree86 Project anytime the xlib files are used.

Developers have indicated on various mailing lists that such inclusion of credit would be logistically difficult to implement at this time, and in their opinion, such a license would be incompatible with the GNU General Public License (GPL).
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New how ironic
-drl
New I recall a thread about the X11 core group disbanding
but I can't find it. At the time, it was dismissed as getting rid of the political lightweights so the real developers could get back to work. At least that's the general tone I recall. I wonder if this development is a result of that breakup. Looks ugly in any event.
New That was a political change, not a developmental one.


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
New Ok,
Isn't the licencing issue political rather than developmental? It's a serious question. Looks to me like the next version is getting built, and I assume that the developers are doing that. It's not obvious to me who is pushing the licencing change. Admittedly, I don't understand the hierarchy of that group.
New No
The advertising clause in the new XFree86 licence is incompatible with clause 6 of the GPL; there is some GPL code in the XFree86 code base, and rather more than "some" in your average Linux distribution. EVEN IF you disregarded clause 6, you'd have to change enormous amounts of code to comply with the new advertising clause in the XFree86 licence.


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
New We are talking past one another
I understand that there are developmental implications in the new licence. I agree that is a developmental issue.
I was wondering if the inclusion of the new licence and its new wording was mandated by the developers of XFree86 or if this was a result of the political shakedown that got rid of the "core group". At the time, I got the impression that they were just getting rid of noisy unessential people. In retrospect, could this have been a move to hijack the project?
In any event, it looks like the project is going to fork. Pity.
New Not a pity
Should have happened years ago.

For example, the XFree86 build process is not dissimilar to standing up in a hammock, and should have been dealt with a long time ago. It hasn't. A fork can only be good for everyone, once the initial pain is over.

And yes, I missed your point. Sorry about that.

I do agree that the recent organisational changes brought this current situation about, because they allowed a man (Dawes) to take charge who I think should not have been placed in that position.


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
     So much for XFree86 4.4 - (admin) - (7)
         how ironic -NT - (deSitter)
         I recall a thread about the X11 core group disbanding - (hnick) - (5)
             That was a political change, not a developmental one. -NT - (pwhysall) - (4)
                 Ok, - (hnick) - (3)
                     No - (pwhysall) - (2)
                         We are talking past one another - (hnick) - (1)
                             Not a pity - (pwhysall)

Nine crows at nine o'clock nigh.
88 ms