On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 10:52, Phil Richards wrote:
> On 2004-02-27, John Nilsson <john@milsson.nu> wrote:
> >  It is not the same thing. If Xfree86 can be argued to be a standard
> >  componet of a system Gentoo can COMPLY with the Xfree86 License AND be
> >  compatible with the GPL for those applications linking wiht Xfree86.
> 
> Yes, but the point is it *can't* be argued sensibly.  The argument put
> forward was (basically) "it makes the system more acceptable to end-users".
> Well, so would including "Microsoft Office".
> 
> You *don't* need XFree86 to make a Linux-based operating system.  Period.
> No question, no argument, no discussion.  It is therefore *not* one of
> the "standard libraries that accompany the operating system" - the only
> get-out-of-jail-free card that the GPL allows you to play.  It is an
> add-on to the core operating system for specific end-users - those that
> want a user interface.
> 
> You could build a distribution that didn't violate the GPL, but you
> might find that people wouldn't like it very much - there are lots of
> things that are GPL'd that you would no longer be able to distrbute with
> it.  (Not everything, only those that link against X - like Gnome, gtk...)
> 
> I think these arguments have been done to death already... I'll shut up now.
> 
> phil

I think you are wrong. ;) I think it *can* be argued sensibly. For these
reasons.

1. Virtually all operating systems today ships with some GUI.
2. GNU (as in Gnu Public License) seems to regard the X Windows System
as a core system component.

All you *need* for a linux based operating system is linux and a static
binary called /sbin/init. Clearly the "Base system" referred to in GPL
extends to more than that.

Even though I argue for compatibility, I still think it is correct to
not ship XFree86. Mostly because Gentoo would and the OSS world would be
far better of with a more "geekish" and open development of the X11
implementation.

-John