XFree86 Alters License

kinema writes "According to the XFree86 announcement starting with XFree86 v4.4.0-RC3 there will be a new license. There are some worries that these changes might be incompatible with the GPL." The FSF has a good page about the problems with BSD-style advertising clauses, which ironically uses XFree86's old license as an example of one to emulate.

Comments

eh

[Cyn]

the source is still out there, worst case scenario - the license isn't gpl, and they don't change it to be so - some of the developers split off and recruit noobs, and we end up with a renamed X that everyone uses - that takes a little while to ramp back up to full speed.

It's not the end of the world, but it (could) be annoying, that's for sure. I think thorough investigation is needed (e.g. try reading the license)

Re:eh

[fizbin]

But where does it stop?

What do I do when I want to box up Debian and have to suddenly include three pages of acknowledgements on the outside of the box?

To the response "that's ridiculous; it won't get out of hand", I have to ask: why put it in the license? Is there some reason you need to use the legal force of copyright to bash this over people's heads? Can't you just rely on most people to not be credit-stealing bastards?

The only thing making this clause part of the license does is hurt people who want to be strictly correct in following license rules - but these are the same people who already are giving credit where credit is due. The people who are stealing the credit whole-hog (if, indeed, there are such people) will likely stick the acknowledgement to xfree.org so far down in the secondary appendix to the most unread manual that no one will ever find it unless they already know about xfree's license and go looking.

I have nothing wrong with acknowledging other people's work. The problem is with being forced to do it.

Why shouldn't it be?

[Chris_Jefferson]

This isn't a troll, but seriously, why should it be GPL compatable? The only way to be GPL compatable is to have a licence where the software can re-licensed under the GPL. The GPL states it can only be linked with other software under the GPL (or under a licence which basically means the same thing)

If the GPL is unwilling to be compatable with anyone else, why should anyone be too worried about being compatable with the GPL.

Remember. Open source =\= GPL.

Re:Why shouldn't it be?

[salimma]

However, I find the attitude of the BSD proponents on this subject somewhat strange.

I'm sure this applies only to a vocal minority.. we have Linux/GPL zealots on one side, BSD zealots on the other.

Is GPL worse than propietory???

Ever noticed how in the Middle Ages the Church was much more concerned with suppressing heresies rather than battling infidels? (the Spanish Inquisition was the tip of the iceberg, really, nothing more). Ideas similar to yours but different enough could be your worst enemies; after all, they compete for similar ecological niches, biologically speaking.

Re:Why shouldn't it be?

[Cyclops]

The whole objective of GPL is deliberately and explicitly to prevent commercial exploitation. If you think differently then you have never met RMS in person and listened to him for more than 30 minutes.

*Cough*cough*cough* The whole objective of GPL is deliberately and explicitly to prevent PROPRIETARY exploitation.

As can be read at the Free Software Foundation's site of confusing words about the word commercial:

Please don't use ``commercial'' as a synonym for ``non-free.'' That confuses two entirely different issues.

A program is commercial if it is developed as a business activity. A commercial program can be free or non-free, depending on its license. Likewise, a program developed by a school or an individual can be free or non-free, depending on its license. The two questions, what sort of entity developed the program and what freedom its users have, are independent.

In the first decade of the Free Software Movement, free software packages were almost always noncommercial; the components of the GNU/Linux operating system were developed by individuals or by nonprofit organizations such as the FSF and universities. But in the 90s, free commercial software started to appear.

Free commercial software is a contribution to our community, so we should encourage it. But people who think that ``commercial'' means ``non-free'' will tend to think that the ``free commercial'' combination is self-contradictory, and dismiss the possibility. Let's be careful not to use the word ``commercial'' in that way.

By saying what you just wrote, either you prove you have a weak understanding of english, or a deliberate intention to lie.

And yes, quite more than 30 minutes, thank you.

Re:Why shouldn't it be?

[Brandybuck]

However, I find the attitude of the BSD proponents on this subject somewhat strange.

As a BSD proponent, let me try to explain. The reality is quite different from the deluge of out-of-the-arse assumptions being thrown about.

I want to use the BSD license for my own code. The reasons are numerous, but at the top of the list is because I don't want to impose any restriction upon my users. I could care less what license you use, or your friend uses, or RMS uses, or even Bill Gates uses. All I care about is the freedom to make my code as unrestrictive as possible.

Enter the GPL. If it's an application that I am merely using, I could care less. If it's code that I would like to incorporate into my own work, I cannot, so I don't. Depending on how much I want to incorporate the code, this can range from a slight annoyance to a major peeve. The GPL is a brand that says "members only". For an unrestricted OS like FreeBSD or OpenBSD, great care must be taken that no necessary components are under the GPL or "infected" by the GPL, because the OS as a whole is no longer unrestricted.

I don't think GPL developers are any different in this attitude, if they would step outside their members only club and look around. What happens when a GPL developer runs across free software code that they wish to use, only to discover that it's not GPL-compatible? Same attitude. While the BSD license is compatible with the GPL, the GPL is not compatible with the BSD license.

Why, then, should any of them get mad that other developers would include BSD code in GPL'ed programs?

We don't. Or at least I don't. This has happened to me several times in the past. It doesn't bother me. However, as the original author, I do feel some small reverse consideration is in order. If the derivative code has some fixes that I would like to incorporate into the original, I have to ask for a special exception to do so. In all cases to date, this was unhesitatingly granted by the GPL authors. One some cases they were backported without me ever having to ask. Bless them!

I would prefer that derivative works use the same license I placed on the original. But I will not demand it. I do not believe I have any moral rights to the derivative bits. I think this is the biggest difference between the GPL and BSD license.

Not a BSD-style clause.

[NNKK]

I'm not sure it's GPL-compatible, nor do I particularly care if it is or not, but this isn't the same as the original BSD advertising clause at all, and is nowhere near as annoying.

Here's the original BSD clause:

3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.

And here's the new XFree86 clause:

3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", in the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments.

The problem with the original clause 3 of the BSD license is that it could lead to massive lists of acknowledgements tacked on to an advertisement meant to be fairly compact (e.g. a leaflette, banner ad, sign, billboard, whatever). This isn't the case with the new XFree86 license clause 3, where it only requires acknowledgement in the documentation or the software itself. While keeping track of those acknowledgements might prove difficult at times, it has nowhere NEAR the practical problems that the original BSD license had.

So You Prefer Fragmentation over Cooperation

[FreeUser]

If the GPL is unwilling to be compatable with anyone else, why should anyone be too worried about being compatable with the GPL.

The GPL has been THE reference license since probably before you were born (tongue in cheek).

BSD and GPL are the two original free software licenses. The BSD folks have made an effort to insure that the BSD license is compatible with the GPL not because they share the GNU philosophy (they don't), but to avoid fragmenting the free software world through stupid licensing incompatibilities. FreeBSD changed their license to make it GPL compatible, and GPL v. 2 was changed likewise to be compatible with a wider range of interests (including commercial interests that are shared with the BSD community).

The GPL is the only license many enterprises will consider releasing their erstwhile proprietary code under, as it protects them from having competitors snatch up their code and incorporate it into a competing proprietary product (in their view, competing GPLed products are not an issue, as they can reincorporate the best improvement into their GPLed product). Many of us who write code will not consider a BSD style license because we do not want our code used by freeloaders who incorporate it into non-free, proprietary products.

There are enough (perhaps a majority, even) free software and open source developers who feel this way that the GPL is, if not the majority license, a sufficiently large piece of the OSS / FSS pie that being incompatible with it means losing a huge portion of the community's input and integration.

FreeBSD, as vehement as their disagreement with the GPL is, chose to deliberately modify their license to make it compatible with the GPL for exactly these reasons: because there is room in the community for both views, but no reason whatsoever to fragment the community over those views.

After all, if one licenses under a *BSD style license, and if therefor one doesn't mind having their code placed into a proprietary product, why should one mind having it incorporated into a GPLed product (unless one's goal is simply to fragment the free software world and undermine the cooperation that makes it so effective).

Which makes one wonder about the motives of someone who would post such an inane comment actively encouraging such small minded thinking ("we don't use their license, we don't like them, so why should we cooperate!") ... unless you are someone who feels threatened by free software in general, or people who differ from your vision of free software in particular, and therefor prefer fragmentation over cooperation.