From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32008 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2004 22:49:31 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (128.193.0.39) by eagle.gentoo.oregonstate.edu with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP; 19 Feb 2004 22:49:31 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([128.193.0.34] helo=eagle.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Atwz5-00085v-GZ for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 22:49:31 +0000 Received: (qmail 6346 invoked by uid 50004); 19 Feb 2004 22:49:31 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 11039 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2004 22:49:31 +0000 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <1076987863.15233.27.camel@localhost> <40351FE3.7080103@gentoo.org> <1077223226.28848.2.camel@localhost> <40353473.7090809@gentoo.org> From: "Paul Smith" In-Reply-To: <40353473.7090809@gentoo.org> Reply-To: "Paul Smith" Date: 19 Feb 2004 17:49:25 -0500 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] No XFree86 w/ new license X-Archives-Salt: d493d2d6-14ab-4128-9d4f-7fe023b4f758 X-Archives-Hash: 8e1ee7dc35f6e122fcc27e54dbda282c %% Stewart Honsberger writes: sh> Donnie Berkholz wrote: >>> Could someone plz point me to those words in new version which cause >>> all the troubles? >> OK, let me lay it out as concisely as possible. >> 1) XFree86 license 1.1 _requires_ attribution with other third-party >> attributions. >> 2) This requirement is an additional restriction beyond what the GPL >> itself restricts. >> 3) The GPL prohibits any additional restrictions. >> From these three points we conclude: >> 4) The XFree86 license 1.1 is incompatible with the GPL. sh> So the only problem with this whole mess is that the XFree people sh> want us to give them credit in the same place and mannar as we sh> already give other third parties credit? No. In fact RMS was recently quoted on this subject as saying that the request for attribution is not in itself a bad thing: http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=297 The problem is exactly what Donnie says: the license is not compatible with the GPL. Much of the software distributed on your distribution is licensed under the GPL, including many X applications. If the license of the X libraries is not compatible with the GPL, then no one can distribute them together. Qt, for example, is only distributable without royalties under the GPL, which means that no Qt libraries can be linked with X libraries under the new license (unless you pay $$ to TT). I'm sure the KDE folks, at the least, would not be happy about that. sh> XFree86, pending a replacement, is the only thing giving Linux any sh> credibility as a desktop operating system. Therefore, I would say sh> it's rather an integral part of the acceptance of our distribution sh> and OS as a whole. As such, I wouldn't think a one-liner in a sh> README, INSTALL, or product literature is such a Big Stinking sh> Deal. No one said it was. sh> It's not like they're making the software non-free, they're not sh> demanding royalties, they're not prohibiting the software from sh> being distributed, they're just asking for due credit. Yes. The problem is the way they are doing it. sh> Think of it from their point of view; when some Joe Schmoe starts sh> up X, they see what - KDE or Gnome. What do they think is sh> providing them a GUI? KDE or Gnome. They don't realize that sh> underneath these environments is a hard-working old man spewing sh> 2D/3D rendering instructions to their video cards and keeping the sh> windows from falling off the screen. All they want is a small sh> heads-up. Is that so wrong? You're arguing a straw man. sh> I'd really like a point-by-point dissection of the objectionable sh> license changes Donnie provided one, and you even quoted it above. It may seem a little thing to you, but free software folks care a lot about these kinds of things. We rely heavily on copyright and licenses, and so we try to respect both the letter _and_ the intent of each one that we use. sh> Thank-you in advance for helping us understand a potentially sh> earth-shattering situation over which we seem to have no control. Really, I think you're overstating the enormity of the situation. We still have all the distribution up to 4.4rc2. X has been forked before (where do you think XFree came from in the first place?), and it can easily be forked again if it comes to that. But, I doubt it will come to that. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Smith HASMAT--HA Software Mthds & Tools "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list