On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 20:13:17 +0200 David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I (think I) have read the previous thread about the license change, but > probably not good enough. Would someone care to explain to me what > exactly is the fuss about the license change? I understand that XFree86 > has the exception that you cannot "claim that you wrote it", right? Why > does that make XFree86 non-DFSG compliant?
I'm not sufficiently comfortable with my knowledge of the DFSG to argue why the new XF86 license is not considered to be DFSG-compliant. For that, I'd recommend checking the archives of the debian-legal mailing list. This was discussed in great detail over a period of several months there. In general, the claim has *not* been that the new license change makes XFree86 non-free. The claim has been that the new license change makes XFree86 incompatible with the GPL. Those two statements are not the same: at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html you'll find a long list of licenses which the FSF thinks are free software licenses, but some of which are not compatible with the GPL. Note that I am not, myself, saying that the new XFree86 license is incompatible with the GPL (I feel too ignorant of the details of things to say); I'm merely repeating that that's what the objection to it is. Why does this matter? It matters when you take a module which is covered by a license that isn't compatible with the GPL, and create a larger chunk-o-software by combining it with a module that's covered by the GPL. How do you license that new application in a way that doesn't violate the terms of one of the component licenses? For example, the claim is made that under the terms of the new XFree86 license, any Linux distribution that built and distributed GNOME would effectively be breaking copyright law, since either the XFree86 license or the GPL would have to be violated in so doing. In other words (to summarize), it's not that some people think the new XFree86 license makes it no longer free software; it's that some people think that the new XFree86 license creates legal issues when linked with the GPL'd software packages (e.g. libraries) that predominate in Linux distributions. Not surprisingly, the XFree86 folks (e.g. project leader David Dawes) disagree with this assessment of things. Since the lawyers with FSF (e.g. Eben Moglen of Columbia University) assert that there *is* a problem, I tend to suspect the FSF is correct; but IANAL. But the XFree86 folks also make the argument that there are other common components of the typical Linux distribution that should cause similar complaints about incompatible licensing, if that's really what the problem is. So that's the licensing bit. Some people (both for *and* against dumping XFree86) feel that the real issues here are long-standing complaints against the XFree86 Organization and how it's managed, how new patches/updates are or are not considered, etc., and that the licensing issues are either a smokescreen or the straw that broke the camel's back. Again, you'll have to make up your own mind about that point of view. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove "snip-me." to email) "As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
pgp2YkM45M8ES.pgp
Description: PGP signature
