Re: [gentoo-dev] XFree86 w/ new license

[Jon Portnoy]

On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 12:50:34PM -0800, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-02-16, 22:17:43 -0500, in
> <1076987863.15233.27.camel@localhost>, Donnie Berkholz
> <spyderous@g.o> wrote:
> > We won't be adding versions of XFree86 with the 1.1 license [1] to the
> > tree, so don't be surprised when 4.3.99.903 doesn't show up with the new
> > license.
> >
> > I won't elaborate on the reasons because it's been discussed quite
> > thoroughly in other forums [2-8].
> >
> > We are seeking solutions/alternatives for this issue, so you can sit
> > back, relax and let us do the dirty work.
>
> This idea is bound to get a few extreme reactions. Those who insist on
> reacting extremely may email me privately.
>
> Also, I am thinking abstractly at the moment. This is unlikely
> to present an immediate solution, but will certainly provide some
> thought-fodder. When you play chess, do you try to see the board from
> different angles?
>
> The problem is that the XFree license and the GPL are now
> incompatible. For smooth progression of overall Linux development, one
> of these licenses must now change. This does not necessarily imply that
> the one which changed most recently needs to change back. So much focus
> has been applied to the "offending" portion of the new XFree license;
> perhaps we should lend the same critical eye to our beloved GPL. One
> possible analogy for the situation is that the XFree license demonstrated
> a bug in the GPL.
>

I think it's perfectly reasonable for a license to insist on people not 
placing further restrictions on the code. This is what prevents people 
from making free software nonfree. The BSD license approach is not at 
all intended to keep free software free; it's intended to let people 
create proprietary software using free software code. What you're 
actually suggesting is reforming the way the entire free software 
community feels about freedom and licensing. Have you really thought 
this through?

Basically you're stating that it should be acceptable to place 
proprietary restrictions on what was at one point free software. If 
people wanted their code to be treated that way, they wouldn't license 
it under the GPL. Nobody's forcing anybody to put their code under one 
license or another. I would not use a license that allows additional 
restrictions for most of what I do; I only license relatively trivial 
things under BSD-style licenses.

>
> Attribution is a fairly reasonable request for Open Source / Free
> Software licensing. The authors just want a little recognition for their
> efforts. Prohibited attribution requirements is also a Bad Thing(tm).
>

It's not about attribution requirements; it's about any additional 
restriction whatsoever.

> One solution to the issue would be inclusion in the GPL of one or
> more optional clauses. Much in the same way that "front cover" and
> "back cover" texts may be included in a GPLed package, one could use a
> "GPL+attribution" license. Such a license would be compatible with the
> new XFree license.
>

Sure, if one wanted to. Apparently they do not. The people who picked 
the GPL for their code presumably picked it because they didn't want to 
use a different license. That seems straightforward enough.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying people _shouldn't_ use a license like 
the BSD-style licenses that permit all kinds of additional restrictions, 
if that's the license they want to use. But we're talking here about 
existing packages whose authors specifically picked the GPL who 
presumably do not want their license violated.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list