Re: Question on X and new license...
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:52:10AM +0100, David Martínez Moreno wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > El Lunes, 23 de Febrero de 2004 05:43, Branden Robinson escribió: > [...] > > * Code that forms part of the XFree86 SDK, a driver development kit > > (which there has been some work to package for Debian) *is* under the > > X-Oz license, and would prohibit the development of GPL-licensed > > drivers for the XFree86 X server. > > > [...] > > > > (Fellow debian-x subscribers: I'd like your feedback on this message, as > > once debian-legal has made its decision regarding the DFSG-freeness of > > the X-Oz license, I'd like to re-purpose it, perhaps as a mail to > > debian-devel-announce and/or as a position statement to placed on the X > > Strike Force news page. If any contributor to Debian's X packaging has > > any objection to the above statements, please speak up.) > > I fully oppose to the SDK statement. It is unacceptable. > > My opinion. I don't understand. Are you questioning my facts or my conclusion? Both, or neither? Please elaborate on your reply. -- G. Branden Robinson| There's something wrong if you're Debian GNU/Linux | always right. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Glasow's Law http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question on X and new license...
On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 03:52, David Martínez Moreno wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > El Lunes, 23 de Febrero de 2004 05:43, Branden Robinson escribió: > [...] > > * Code that forms part of the XFree86 SDK, a driver development kit > > (which there has been some work to package for Debian) *is* under the > > X-Oz license, and would prohibit the development of GPL-licensed > > drivers for the XFree86 X server. > > > [...] > > > > (Fellow debian-x subscribers: I'd like your feedback on this message, as > > once debian-legal has made its decision regarding the DFSG-freeness of > > the X-Oz license, I'd like to re-purpose it, perhaps as a mail to > > debian-devel-announce and/or as a position statement to placed on the X > > Strike Force news page. If any contributor to Debian's X packaging has > > any objection to the above statements, please speak up.) > > I fully oppose to the SDK statement. It is unacceptable. Because > My opinion. Certainly not Uday Hussein's. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jefferson, LA USA In 1929, when the Great Depresion hit, while all the other tabulating companies retrenched, Thomas Watson Sr. insisted that IBM's factories stay open and R&D spending increase. Thus, in 1935 when FDR signed the Social Security Act, and businesses and gov't had a huge need for tabulating/sorting machines, IBM was in position to dominate the industry, and did so for the next 45 years.
Re: Question on X and new license...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 El Lunes, 23 de Febrero de 2004 05:43, Branden Robinson escribió: [...] > * Code that forms part of the XFree86 SDK, a driver development kit > (which there has been some work to package for Debian) *is* under the > X-Oz license, and would prohibit the development of GPL-licensed > drivers for the XFree86 X server. > [...] > > (Fellow debian-x subscribers: I'd like your feedback on this message, as > once debian-legal has made its decision regarding the DFSG-freeness of > the X-Oz license, I'd like to re-purpose it, perhaps as a mail to > debian-devel-announce and/or as a position statement to placed on the X > Strike Force news page. If any contributor to Debian's X packaging has > any objection to the above statements, please speak up.) I fully oppose to the SDK statement. It is unacceptable. My opinion. Ender. - -- - - Kyle, all those times I said you were a dumb, stupid Jew, well, I was wrong, you're not a Jew. - - Cartman, I *am* Jewish! - - There, there, don't be hard on yourself, Kyle. -- Cartman & Kyle (South Park). - -- Servicios de red - Network services RedIRIS - Spanish Academic Network for Research and Development Madrid (Spain) Tlf (+34) 91.585.51.50 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFARarKWs/EhA1iABsRAtRpAJ9UbmM/VDFiEY1RMMLPYrv0N9cllACfbmZA ApocZ/sHMrRFePtk3vhLh1U= =ZIwL -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Question on X and new license...
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But that's the argument that's being made. I'm going to be very > sad if a few minor license changes leads to the major Linux distros > (and possibly OBSD) tossing out such an integral part of the desk- > top just as momentum is starting to build. something to note: so far all of the mail I've seen from XFree86 has been polite. Not so for the others, who are conveying second-hand reports of rude behavior. But the ones who are reporting it this way are themselves being rude (direct observation). That makes me believe they're also not giving accurate reports. Probably the same people who're making anonymous postings to slashdot... (so much for mob-rule) -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net
Re: Question on X and new license...
On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 05:19, Thomas Dickey wrote: > Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (replying to a troll) > >> > > >> > (I really hope not to start a flame war ...) > >> > >> They don't want people to be able to legally remove the advertisement. > > > And that violates the GPL's "no restrictions" clause. > > self-serving nonsense. Most copyright notices contain a clause that > prohibits removing the notice. That does not (in my experience has > not) stop people from using extended sections of code, removing the > copyright notice and using it without credit. Just beccause "it's done" doesn't make it "right" or "legal". > (if you want to make a point, try to make it useful) But that's the argument that's being made. I'm going to be very sad if a few minor license changes leads to the major Linux distros (and possibly OBSD) tossing out such an integral part of the desk- top just as momentum is starting to build. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jefferson, LA USA Windows sucks. No, really. Any butt-wipe pseudo-OS that *needs* kludges like PC-Anywhere or RDP for remote access, and only allows 1 login at a time shouldn't be allowed to exist, and it's developers should be shot.
Re: Question on X and new license...
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (replying to a troll) >> > >> > (I really hope not to start a flame war ...) >> >> They don't want people to be able to legally remove the advertisement. > And that violates the GPL's "no restrictions" clause. self-serving nonsense. Most copyright notices contain a clause that prohibits removing the notice. That does not (in my experience has not) stop people from using extended sections of code, removing the copyright notice and using it without credit. (if you want to make a point, try to make it useful) -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net
Re: Question on X and new license...
On Mon, 2004-03-01 at 17:49, Warren Turkal wrote: > Dominique Dumont wrote: > > > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> (Fellow debian-x subscribers: I'd like your feedback on this message, as > >> once debian-legal has made its decision regarding the DFSG-freeness of > >> the X-Oz license, I'd like to re-purpose it, perhaps as a mail to > >> debian-devel-announce and/or as a position statement to placed on the X > >> Strike Force news page. If any contributor to Debian's X packaging has > >> any objection to the above statements, please speak up.) > > > > Looks like the issue revolves arounf the advertisement of Xfree86. > > > > OK, I may be naive, but could we suggest Xfree's owners that they can > > handle their own advertising without the X-oz licence: When Xfree > > starts, there's always 1 oe 2 seconds of a grey mesh. Why don't they > > place their advertising here. The advert could last one or 2 seconds > > or the time required for [xkw]dm to start. > > > > This way, they would have their advertising without changing the > > licenses or impacting Xfree developers. > > > > Cheers > > > > (I really hope not to start a flame war ...) > > They don't want people to be able to legally remove the advertisement. And that violates the GPL's "no restrictions" clause. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jefferson, LA USA "Go not unto the Usenet for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (and quite a few things that just have nothing at all to do with the question)." Unknown
Re: Question on X and new license...
Dominique Dumont wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> (Fellow debian-x subscribers: I'd like your feedback on this message, as >> once debian-legal has made its decision regarding the DFSG-freeness of >> the X-Oz license, I'd like to re-purpose it, perhaps as a mail to >> debian-devel-announce and/or as a position statement to placed on the X >> Strike Force news page. If any contributor to Debian's X packaging has >> any objection to the above statements, please speak up.) > > Looks like the issue revolves arounf the advertisement of Xfree86. > > OK, I may be naive, but could we suggest Xfree's owners that they can > handle their own advertising without the X-oz licence: When Xfree > starts, there's always 1 oe 2 seconds of a grey mesh. Why don't they > place their advertising here. The advert could last one or 2 seconds > or the time required for [xkw]dm to start. > > This way, they would have their advertising without changing the > licenses or impacting Xfree developers. > > Cheers > > (I really hope not to start a flame war ...) They don't want people to be able to legally remove the advertisement. wt -- Warren Turkal President, GOLUM, Inc. http://www.golum.org
Re: Question on X and new license...
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > (Fellow debian-x subscribers: I'd like your feedback on this message, as > once debian-legal has made its decision regarding the DFSG-freeness of > the X-Oz license, I'd like to re-purpose it, perhaps as a mail to > debian-devel-announce and/or as a position statement to placed on the X > Strike Force news page. If any contributor to Debian's X packaging has > any objection to the above statements, please speak up.) Looks like the issue revolves arounf the advertisement of Xfree86. OK, I may be naive, but could we suggest Xfree's owners that they can handle their own advertising without the X-oz licence: When Xfree starts, there's always 1 oe 2 seconds of a grey mesh. Why don't they place their advertising here. The advert could last one or 2 seconds or the time required for [xkw]dm to start. This way, they would have their advertising without changing the licenses or impacting Xfree developers. Cheers (I really hope not to start a flame war ...)
Re: Question on X and new license...
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 11:57:04PM -, Thomas Dickey wrote: >> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > There may not be very many people who want to use the new XFree86 >> > license, just to get along with the XFree86 Project leadership, and who >> > also want to retain GPL-compatibility, but it's not an unreasonable >> > position, and dual-licensing would be an easy way to achieve it. >>=20 >> That's an interesting point. Can you point out anyone in the other mob >> who's actually a leader? > I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. That's obvious (to anyone who's not a member of this angry & unthinking mob). But I was curious if you could point to someone who would be better than that. (have a suitable day). -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net
Re: Question on X and new license...
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 11:57:04PM -, Thomas Dickey wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There may not be very many people who want to use the new XFree86 > > license, just to get along with the XFree86 Project leadership, and who > > also want to retain GPL-compatibility, but it's not an unreasonable > > position, and dual-licensing would be an easy way to achieve it. > > That's an interesting point. Can you point out anyone in the other mob > who's actually a leader? I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. -- G. Branden Robinson| My first priority in any attack is Debian GNU/Linux | to solve the problem - not issue a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | press release. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Steve McInerney signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question on X and new license...
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There may not be very many people who want to use the new XFree86 > license, just to get along with the XFree86 Project leadership, and who > also want to retain GPL-compatibility, but it's not an unreasonable > position, and dual-licensing would be an easy way to achieve it. That's an interesting point. Can you point out anyone in the other mob who's actually a leader? -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net
Re: Question on X and new license...
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:57:44AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 12:59:19PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 11:43:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > * Code that forms part of the XFree86 SDK, a driver development kit > > > (which there has been some work to package for Debian) *is* under the > > > X-Oz license, and would prohibit the development of GPL-licensed > > > drivers for the XFree86 X server. > > > Mmm, i would like to look into this, and see if i can manage to get > > those files changed if needed. Also, you only would need to dual-licence > > those drivers under the GPL and the X-Oz licence, which would not be an > > all that bad thing politically. > > Dual-licensing would defeat the purpose of GPLing the drivers, i.e. it > would open them up to proprietary exploitation by others. The difference is that the old XFree86 license was GPL-compatible, and the new one is not. It is still true that XFree86 will not accept code licensed only under the GPL into their source distribution. (They already permit code that is multi-licensed in part under the GPL into their distribution; see parts of Thomas Winischhofer's SiS driver.) There may not be very many people who want to use the new XFree86 license, just to get along with the XFree86 Project leadership, and who also want to retain GPL-compatibility, but it's not an unreasonable position, and dual-licensing would be an easy way to achieve it. -- G. Branden Robinson|Fair use is irrelevant and Debian GNU/Linux |improper. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Asst. U.S. Attorney Scott http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |Frewing, explaining the DMCA signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question on X and new license...
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:57:44AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote: > > > * Code that forms part of the XFree86 SDK, a driver development kit > > > (which there has been some work to package for Debian) *is* under the > > > X-Oz license, and would prohibit the development of GPL-licensed > > > drivers for the XFree86 X server. > > > Mmm, i would like to look into this, and see if i can manage to get > > those files changed if needed. Also, you only would need to dual-licence > > those drivers under the GPL and the X-Oz licence, which would not be an > > all that bad thing politically. > > Dual-licensing would defeat the purpose of GPLing the drivers, i.e. it > would open them up to proprietary exploitation by others. Well, if you are going to write drivers which cannot be used by the XFree86 project, it is understandable that they won't go to an effort to make you writing them easy. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Question on X and new license...
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 02:03:47PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 12:59:19PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 11:43:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > * David Dawes, President of The XFree86 Project, Inc., claims that a > > > a decision to apply the X-Oz license to any "client side library" code > > > shipped by that organization has been "deferred".[1] This statement > > > is a lot weaker than a guarantee that it never will happen. > > > > Yeah, but i believe this is more politicking than anything else. > > Branden, do you know the real story behind this whole stuff anyway ? > > No. I suspect there's only one person who does, and he appears to be > adamant that there's nothing more to know. Yeah, i suspect there is more than one though. > > > * Code that forms part of the XFree86 SDK, a driver development kit > > > (which there has been some work to package for Debian) *is* under the > > > X-Oz license, and would prohibit the development of GPL-licensed > > > drivers for the XFree86 X server. > > > > Mmm, i would like to look into this, and see if i can manage to get > > those files changed if needed. Also, you only would need to dual-licence > > those drivers under the GPL and the X-Oz licence, which would not be an > > all that bad thing politically. > > If you could: > > 1) identify all files shipped by the SDK affected by the relicensing; > > and > > 2) a) get them relicensed under the previous license; or >b) get them dual-licensed under the GNU GPL; > > and > > 3) get a statement from the XFree86 Project, Inc., that any file shipped >as part of the SDK in the future will be handled the same as the ones >that are part of it today > > ...then I'd be very appreciative! I think many people in the community > would be as well. Yeah, will look at this, but am a bit doubtful i will achieve this. > > > * I have argued to the debian-x mailing list that the X-Oz license is > > > actually not even a Free Software license, because, at the least, it > > > fails clause 9 of the Debian Free Software Guidelines in two distinct > > > ways. If you're interested, you may wish to read my message[2] to > > > that list. (It is worth noting that the debian-legal subscribers have > > > not formed a strong consensus one way or the other regarding the > > > DFSG-freeness of the X-Oz license; the matter is still pending.) > > > > Your main argument seems to be that this is failing DFSG 9, because it > > places restriction on other software on the same media. I believe that > > XFree86 interpretation of this, as expressed in their legal FAQ which > > should accompany the licence, clearly state that this is not the case, > > that it will only apply to derived works, and that providing credit to > > XFree86, inside the Release notes document for example, should be > > enough. > > I tried to follow a link to the FAQ from here: > > http://www.xfree86.org/xnews/#license > > But it didn't work. > > Not Found > > The requested URL /xnews/legal/licenses.html was not found on this > server. It is here : http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licenses.html I guess the xnews part is oo much. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Question on X and new license...
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 12:59:19PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 11:43:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > * David Dawes, President of The XFree86 Project, Inc., claims that a > > a decision to apply the X-Oz license to any "client side library" code > > shipped by that organization has been "deferred".[1] This statement > > is a lot weaker than a guarantee that it never will happen. Changing the license on the server at this late date has its own (albeit much smaller) problems. It's going to blind-side a lot of people who don't follow the gossip channels and could well lead to a lot of inadvertent license violating by people who were previously in full compliance with all the license requirements. This, I think, is the essence of the BSD-folks' objections to the new license. (Speaking of inadvertent license violating, does anyone even know the complete list of people that must be credited in advertisements of Debian-based systems due to 4-clause BSD licenses? "The OpenSSL project, Eric Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]"" and...? Do we still need to credit the UC Regents?) > > * Code that forms part of the XFree86 SDK, a driver development kit > > (which there has been some work to package for Debian) *is* under the > > X-Oz license, and would prohibit the development of GPL-licensed > > drivers for the XFree86 X server. > Mmm, i would like to look into this, and see if i can manage to get > those files changed if needed. Also, you only would need to dual-licence > those drivers under the GPL and the X-Oz licence, which would not be an > all that bad thing politically. Dual-licensing would defeat the purpose of GPLing the drivers, i.e. it would open them up to proprietary exploitation by others. -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra-osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico-to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
Re: Question on X and new license...
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 12:59:19PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 11:43:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > * David Dawes, President of The XFree86 Project, Inc., claims that a > > a decision to apply the X-Oz license to any "client side library" code > > shipped by that organization has been "deferred".[1] This statement > > is a lot weaker than a guarantee that it never will happen. > > Yeah, but i believe this is more politicking than anything else. > Branden, do you know the real story behind this whole stuff anyway ? No. I suspect there's only one person who does, and he appears to be adamant that there's nothing more to know. > > * Code that forms part of the XFree86 SDK, a driver development kit > > (which there has been some work to package for Debian) *is* under the > > X-Oz license, and would prohibit the development of GPL-licensed > > drivers for the XFree86 X server. > > Mmm, i would like to look into this, and see if i can manage to get > those files changed if needed. Also, you only would need to dual-licence > those drivers under the GPL and the X-Oz licence, which would not be an > all that bad thing politically. If you could: 1) identify all files shipped by the SDK affected by the relicensing; and 2) a) get them relicensed under the previous license; or b) get them dual-licensed under the GNU GPL; and 3) get a statement from the XFree86 Project, Inc., that any file shipped as part of the SDK in the future will be handled the same as the ones that are part of it today ...then I'd be very appreciative! I think many people in the community would be as well. > > * I have argued to the debian-x mailing list that the X-Oz license is > > actually not even a Free Software license, because, at the least, it > > fails clause 9 of the Debian Free Software Guidelines in two distinct > > ways. If you're interested, you may wish to read my message[2] to > > that list. (It is worth noting that the debian-legal subscribers have > > not formed a strong consensus one way or the other regarding the > > DFSG-freeness of the X-Oz license; the matter is still pending.) > > Your main argument seems to be that this is failing DFSG 9, because it > places restriction on other software on the same media. I believe that > XFree86 interpretation of this, as expressed in their legal FAQ which > should accompany the licence, clearly state that this is not the case, > that it will only apply to derived works, and that providing credit to > XFree86, inside the Release notes document for example, should be > enough. I tried to follow a link to the FAQ from here: http://www.xfree86.org/xnews/#license But it didn't work. Not Found The requested URL /xnews/legal/licenses.html was not found on this server. -- G. Branden Robinson| Suffer before God and ye shall be Debian GNU/Linux | redeemed. God loves us, so He [EMAIL PROTECTED] | makes us suffer Christianity. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Aaron Dunsmore signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question on X and new license...
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 03:35:50AM -0500, Russell Neches wrote: > Clearly, XFree86 is a bit more complicated. Nevertheless, shouldn't we > be talking about how to work with the XFree86 Project to resolve the > issues (whatever they are), instead of talking about forking the whole > project? Or is forking/re-implementing/replacing XFree86 the hot new > thing? This sounds reasonable, but the whole issue is plagued by year long personal relationship problems, and power play over the actual control of the XFree86 project. I am only a minor contributor to XFree86, and have missed most of it, but then, it seems to me that all players in this have severly misbehaved in the past, and that these tensions and problems are resulting in the problems we are seing. The licence change is only the tip of the iceberg, and probably a not so clever move on the XFree86 part. This is probably this whole stuff is not really making sense to the non-initiated observers. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Question on X and new license...
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 11:43:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > * David Dawes, President of The XFree86 Project, Inc., claims that a > a decision to apply the X-Oz license to any "client side library" code > shipped by that organization has been "deferred".[1] This statement > is a lot weaker than a guarantee that it never will happen. Yeah, but i believe this is more politicking than anything else. Branden, do you know the real story behind this whole stuff anyway ? > * Code that forms part of the XFree86 SDK, a driver development kit > (which there has been some work to package for Debian) *is* under the > X-Oz license, and would prohibit the development of GPL-licensed > drivers for the XFree86 X server. Mmm, i would like to look into this, and see if i can manage to get those files changed if needed. Also, you only would need to dual-licence those drivers under the GPL and the X-Oz licence, which would not be an all that bad thing politically. > * I have argued to the debian-x mailing list that the X-Oz license is > actually not even a Free Software license, because, at the least, it > fails clause 9 of the Debian Free Software Guidelines in two distinct > ways. If you're interested, you may wish to read my message[2] to > that list. (It is worth noting that the debian-legal subscribers have > not formed a strong consensus one way or the other regarding the > DFSG-freeness of the X-Oz license; the matter is still pending.) Your main argument seems to be that this is failing DFSG 9, because it places restriction on other software on the same media. I believe that XFree86 interpretation of this, as expressed in their legal FAQ which should accompany the licence, clearly state that this is not the case, that it will only apply to derived works, and that providing credit to XFree86, inside the Release notes document for example, should be enough. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Question on X and new license...
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 03:35:50AM -0500, Russell Neches wrote: > I set about trying to figure out exactly what the problem is. You should have just asked. It would have wasted a lot less of your time. > this license doesn't appear to clash with the [DFSG] No, it's simply annoying (like the old BSD-with-advertising-clause license). And GPL-incompatible. > It's clear enough that the BSD community and the FSF don't see > eye-to-eye on what, exactly, Free means. The BSD community has a much narrow definition, but that's beside the point. Theo de Raadt of the OpenBSD project has already announced that they will not be using this new license. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=107696705911864&w=2 > Clearly, XFree86 is a bit more complicated. Nevertheless, shouldn't we > be talking about how to work with the XFree86 Project to resolve the > issues (whatever they are), instead of talking about forking the whole > project? Debian has talked to them. Mandrake has talked to them. Gentoo has talked to them. OpenBSD has talked to them. Red Hat (or at least Alan Cox) has talked to them. Lots of other people have talked to them. THEY'RE NOT LISTENING. This is not Debian vs. XFree86, this is EVERYONE vs. XFree86. And it's not Debian talking about forking, it's everyone. If you still don't think there's a real problem, I'm sorry. -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra-osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico-to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
Re: Question on X and new license...
Having heard about this issue from the usual places, and having read Branden's rather frightening plunge into the rat's nest of licensing cruft (BR: you're a braver man than I), I set about trying to figure out exactly what the problem is. So, I headed over to xfree86.org and tracked down the new license: http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licenses.html Then I popped up the venerable Debian Social Contract, http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html and set about trying to find the problem for myself. Now, there may be deep and subtle issues here that I don't grasp, but this license doesn't appear to clash with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. I've read the nine points of the guidelines, and the four points of the new Xfree86 license, and I simply don't see it. It's clear enough that the BSD community and the FSF don't see eye-to-eye on what, exactly, Free means. I think it's fair to say that because both licenses stipulate that the author retains ownership, it boils down to a matter taste (this isn't to say that there arn't such things as "good taste" and "bad taste"). That aside, the BSD license and the GPL both meet the requirements of the DFSG. Now, looking at the sample BSD style license cited on the DFSG page, http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license and looking at the XFree86 1.1 license, I don't see a material difference. The license clearly isn't GPLish, which no doubt annoys the FSF. But it _is_ BSDish, which, as I pointed out, is perfectly acceptable as Free Software, according to the DFSG. It appears that they want the copyright notice in the documentation of binary redistributions. Now, I have the latest X packages installed, which I understand to be "binary distributions." I note that there is a file /usr/share/doc/xfree86-common/copyright that, insofar as I understand the situation, addresses exactly this issue. So, I'm stumped. We wouldn't be having this discussion if there weren't a problem, but I'll be damned if I can see what it is. As Branden has shown, the XFree86 Project is very inconsistent in it's handling of the license situation, and their state of their codebase speaks to that. It might be illustrative to relate a short anecdote. My friend Ian Langworth is the author of a program called cadubi. Ian wrote this little utility when he was very young, and as he puts it, "didn't know anything." He assembled a license for it by wandering around BBSs and web sites and plopping together bits of boilerplate that "sounded good." Legally speaking, it was gibberish. Years later, someone decided to upload it to Debian, and there was an argument about the license. From what he tells me, it ended up being placed in non-free, and everyone was very sour about it. Oddly enough, no one thought to email him, that author. Years after that, he became a Debian user. On a lark, he looked for cadubi in the archives, and there it was, in non-free. So, he ripped out his gibberish license and put it under the Artistic license, and all was well. The reason I'm bringing this up is that it is very easy as maintainers and packagers to forget that the authors are regular folks too. If there is a problem with an ostensibly Free Software license, it is probably not intentional. In Ian's case, the whole issue could have been avoided if someone had simply fired off an email to him saying, "Hey! We want to upload cadubi, but your license doesn't make any sense. Could you please pick one of these licenses that we _do_ understand?" Clearly, XFree86 is a bit more complicated. Nevertheless, shouldn't we be talking about how to work with the XFree86 Project to resolve the issues (whatever they are), instead of talking about forking the whole project? Or is forking/re-implementing/replacing XFree86 the hot new thing? Russell
Re: Question on X and new license...
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 11:43:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I expect a consortium of GNU/Linux and *BSD vendors to coalsece around > the efforts of the Free Desktop organization[3], one of which is likely > to be a fork of the XFree86 code from CVS HEAD, probably as of 12 > Feburary 2004 (immediately prior to the application of the new license). > Furthermore, code to which the X-Oz license applies will have to removed > as well. Specifically, this comprises two commits made to XFree86 CVS > on 8 October 2003[4][5], which implement automatic configuration of the > XFree86 X server, obviating the need for an XF86Config file in some > cases. >From my survey of the various autoconfig options being used in different distros currently, it looks like there are a variety of workable replacements for the autoconfig code in the field right now, but there is no unified solution. Right now I'm building a modified version of the solution knoppix uses for Debian, hopefully in time for sarge's release, but as it stands the lack of a unified solution seems more like annoying redundancy than anything. I'd personally like to help at freedesktop.org in the future in getting some sort of built-in solution that all distros can use to make our lives a little easier. That'll take care of one issue. - David Nusinow
Re: Question on X and new license...
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 09:40:07PM -0500, Steven J. Hill wrote: > Greetings. > > I really really apologize in advance for the question. Please flame me > if I should be on a different list. I have attempted to read some > archives on 'freedesktop.org' as well as the Debian X archives. With > the new license, how is the Debian project going to proceed with X? I > am interested if there is going to be a new tree and what the last > development snapshot is that does not contain the 1.1 license? Thanks. No problem, right list. * No member of the Debian X Strike Force, the team that now maintains Debian's packages of the X Window System, has declared any intention to package any work under the XFree86 1.1 license, also known as the X-Oz license (whose terms are identical, and which predates the new XFree86 license by a few months). * The X-Oz license is not GPL-compatible according to most parties who have expressed an opinion, including the Debian Project and the Free Software Foundation. * The infrastructural nature of the X Window System sample implementation, which XFree86 includes, and the large base of GPL-licensed software built on that sample implementation, renders a GPL-incompatible change to that base deeply problematic from a practical standpoint. * David Dawes, President of The XFree86 Project, Inc., claims that a a decision to apply the X-Oz license to any "client side library" code shipped by that organization has been "deferred".[1] This statement is a lot weaker than a guarantee that it never will happen. * Code that forms part of the XFree86 SDK, a driver development kit (which there has been some work to package for Debian) *is* under the X-Oz license, and would prohibit the development of GPL-licensed drivers for the XFree86 X server. * I have argued to the debian-x mailing list that the X-Oz license is actually not even a Free Software license, because, at the least, it fails clause 9 of the Debian Free Software Guidelines in two distinct ways. If you're interested, you may wish to read my message[2] to that list. (It is worth noting that the debian-legal subscribers have not formed a strong consensus one way or the other regarding the DFSG-freeness of the X-Oz license; the matter is still pending.) Given all of the above, it is my recommendation to the Debian X Strike Force, the Debian Project in general, and to the Open Source and Free Software communities to avoid all code under the X-Oz license (a.k.a. XFree86 1.1 license). I expect a consortium of GNU/Linux and *BSD vendors to coalsece around the efforts of the Free Desktop organization[3], one of which is likely to be a fork of the XFree86 code from CVS HEAD, probably as of 12 Feburary 2004 (immediately prior to the application of the new license). Furthermore, code to which the X-Oz license applies will have to removed as well. Specifically, this comprises two commits made to XFree86 CVS on 8 October 2003[4][5], which implement automatic configuration of the XFree86 X server, obviating the need for an XF86Config file in some cases. I hope this information is helpful. (Fellow debian-x subscribers: I'd like your feedback on this message, as once debian-legal has made its decision regarding the DFSG-freeness of the X-Oz license, I'd like to re-purpose it, perhaps as a mail to debian-devel-announce and/or as a position statement to placed on the X Strike Force news page. If any contributor to Debian's X packaging has any objection to the above statements, please speak up.) [1] http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-February/003998.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200402/msg00162.html [3] http://www.freedesktop.org/ [4] Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [5] Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | If ignorance is bliss, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | is omniscience hell? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Question on X and new license...
Greetings. I really really apologize in advance for the question. Please flame me if I should be on a different list. I have attempted to read some archives on 'freedesktop.org' as well as the Debian X archives. With the new license, how is the Debian project going to proceed with X? I am interested if there is going to be a new tree and what the last development snapshot is that does not contain the 1.1 license? Thanks. -Steve
