Re: [gentoo-dev] No XFree86 w/ new license

[Paul Smith]

%% Stewart Honsberger <blkdeath@g.o> 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 <psmith@××××××××××××××.com>   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@g.o mailing list