Slashdot Mirror
XFree86 4.4: List of Rejecting Distributors Grows
Bootsy Collins writes "Yesterday, we
discussed
Mandrake's
decision to
revert their release-in-development from XFree86 version 4.4 back to version 4.3 because of issues with the
new XFree86 license.
To update this, the list of OS distributors opting out of
XF86 Version 4.4, and future releases, based on licensing concerns continues to grow.
While Fedora seems to be
"preparing to support multiple X11 implementations",
Red Hat has explicitly stated
that they have no plans to ship XFree86 v4.4
under its current license. Also add to the growing list
list
Debian,
Gentoo,
and OpenBSD."
Doesn't 'sell' well when it isn't free ;)
Why is the new liscence being rejected?
Steve
Won't rejecting this actually hinder the linux desktop movement? Xfree is a huge factor in using linux, at least for a lot of the gamers, and we need the best support we can get.
**It runs through my veins like radioactive rubber pants! Do not deny my veins!**
I suppose that the question here is: why? Is the new licence really that bad? Is this reaction warranted?
However, if this does become a serious dispute, I can see it being a good thing for the desktop. Development will have the branch from the last version of XFree86 4.3 into some new direction which, hopefully, will make for a better X in years to come.
Looks like KeithP's freedesktop.org xserver is looking more attractive all the time..
What are the chances someone will take 4.3 and fork it, and carrying on development as free software?
Hopefully, eventually, XFree would realise how much they borked their userbase, and stop this sillyness.
I'd like to bet that a good proportion of their userbase comes from Distros, and if the distros drop 4.4, they're going to be hit rather badly.
I'm no XFree86 expert, but surely any changes committed by developers prior to the license change will be still under the previous license and therefore a good starting block for any forking.
Join the Free Software Foundation
With this shift back a version, does it mean we'll lose a bunch of features, stability, etc? It seems like this is petty squabbling for squabbling's sake. This reminds me of the PHP fiasco with MySQL. Hardcore PHPers are sticking with the sluggish MySQL 3 family because of the licensing on MySQL 4.
Reading their 'diff' of the new and old licenses is a waste of time, as it's pretty much:
- all the old license
+ all the new license
So could someone break down the basic point of the changes? As far as I make it out, it's a simple case of 'we want to have everyone who contributed be credited with every copy', or is it somewhat deeper than that?
Perhaps distros should distribute XFree86 4.4 as source only and have it compile in a 'firsttime' sort of system when you boot Linux up after installation. From what I read in the XFree86 license, this would work. Could this turn into a BSD-like 'build all' for Linux?
This brings up a concern about NVIDIA drivers to me. Say NVIDIA only continues to release new drivers compatible with xfree86 4.4 and up. That's *really* going to put pressure on the linux distributions to include 4.4. I wonder how hard it would be for the recent X forks to maintain NVIDIA driver compatibility?
Project Steve
in the morning.
.com maths to their business plan. Namely "If 100,000 people pay us just $1 a year that will pay for everything, and a new car" missing the fact that 100,000 people can bugger off elsewhere.
I mean, come on folks how much does this smack of the one thing everyone in the FSF/OSF movement dreads ? Namely a few developers getting too big for their boots and wanting to turn their free-software into the next Microsoft. Thus missing two key points
1) They haven't been given a monopoly by IBM
2) The reason anyone uses it is because it isn't a monopoly given by IBM.
Somebody somewhere wants to build an empire, and has applied
Ummm I wonder if IBM or Sun have ever had to write an XServer...
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
This could be a good thing. If this continues to be a problem, it could drive a lot of people to the freedesktop.org XServer implementation. This looks like it will come to be a much better implementation anyway, and will almost certainly develop faster in the future, given the same resources as XFree86. If a considerable number of developers/distributions worked on getting the XServer up to speed, with proper driver support, it would probably be better for everyone.
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
Comparing the old and new license it appears all they added was the requirement to place the copyright in the documentation of binary releases, include an acknowledgement of the XFree86 project, and forbid the use of "he name of The XFree86 Project, Inc" in advertising. It's not like they're closing the source, so what exactly is the problem the distros have with the new license? The only thing I can think of is a general resistance to cahnging licenses mid-stream, regardless of the nature of the change.
Why the hell did they pick 4.4 to make this change on?
Don't major changes usually happen on whole numbers? Shouldn't they at least wait until 5.0 to change the license.?
[ Don't reply to this ]
Use Xouvert or FreeDesktop and it is the end of the story.
If I remember correct then is Xouvert an early fork of X 4.4.
FreeDesktop is of course a long term better choice, but I don't think there is a working version yet.
I haven't been keeping up... what's wrong with the new license?
If the new license is bad, what's gonna replace it? Another type of X?
Agile Artisans
IIRC, you're not allowed to
distribute modified versions of TeX,
only patches alongside "pure" TeX.
So how can this be worse?
I don't mind the new license, mainly because I don't care about the GPL and the FSF in general.
I'm not fond of X at all, but XF86 works pretty well considering using such an arcane architecture.
I hope NetBSD and FreeBSD use the new XF86, so I don't have to incorperate it myself; and if the others, like Linux distros, don't I don't really care as I don't use them.
Announcement: Modification to the base XFree86(TM) license.
After a thorough re-examination of the XFree86(TM) license and reviewing
how it fits in with the Project's long-stated licensing philosophy ("You
can do what you like with the code except claim that you wrote it."),
The XFree86 Project, Inc. has made some changes to its base license.
This license review was prompted by a desire to ensure that XFree86 and
its contributors are receiving due credit for their work. The text of
the modified license can be found at
http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licenses.html.
The purpose of these changes is to strengthen the "except claim you
wrote it" clause of the Project's licensing philosophy regarding binary
distributions of XFree86. While the original license covered this
adequately for source code redistribution, it has always been lacking
where binary redistribution was concerned.
This modified license falls easily within the long-standing XFree86
licensing policy, and so there has been no change to the classes of
licenses acceptable for code contributed to XFree86. In fact, some
contributions to XFree86 were covered by a similar license already.
Contributors to XFree86 remain free to retain copyright on the code they
contribute, and can also choose the license for their code within the
long-standing XFree86 licensing policy.
The license change applies to the base XFree86 license, and to source
files that explicitly carry a copyright notice in the name of The XFree86
Project, Inc. Copyrights and licenses in the names of others will not
be affected by this change. Furthermore, only a subset of such files
with an explicit copyright notice in the Project's name will initially
carry the modified license, which is the core XFree86 components, and
the source files where there is no explicit author list. The license
in the remaining files with an XFree86 copyright will only be changed
with permission from the listed authors.
The license change will be fully effective as of the 4.4.0 release.
The initial draft of the changes will be included in 4.4.0 RC3
(4.3.99.903). A source diff showing the initial draft of the changes
is being made available for review with this announcement, and can be
found at . All XFree86
contributors are invited to review the changes, and notify us of errors
and omissions so that they can be corrected before the 4.4.0 release.
Such notifications, as well as comments about the licensing changes
should be directed to the Forum@XFree86.org list. XFree86 contributors
are also encouraged to review the license change, and let us know if
they wish to make similar changes to licenses in their name.
* XFree86 is a trademark of The XFree86 Project, Inc., and is pending
registration.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
Looking at the list of distributions who say they are not going to entertain using Xfree86 with the v1.1 license, it would seem that all of the major distros are represented (except Suse?).
If that's the case, usage of XFree86 will simply stop at rev 4.3.mumble or go away entirely. I'd be pretty surprised if the XFree guys didn't back down. The alternative is a slow spiral into obscurity.
How will this effect the future of Gnome and KDE?
Finally, they figured out how they can give us a decent/better/faster/nicer/stronger/cooler/less bloated X-Windows.
By ceasing to exist (practically)!
So, is *anyone* going to use it?
I guess they have no choice but to change the licence back with very red faces all round!
Mind you, X is an integral portion of desktop *nix - could someone have set this up on purpose?
So doesn't this mean that whoever comingled GPL'ed source code with non-GPL'ed source code broke someone's copyright?
Because either he/they broke the GPL terms, OR they performed in unauthorized GPL'ing of the other, non-GPL-using contributors' source code.
This is a question of legality, not community. We are facing an incompatibility of licenses, not just some petty squabble.
They're having a hissy fit over a license that requires you to acknowledge if/when you use xfree86 and that tells you to incluse that acknowledgement in the same place you include other acknowledgements about your software?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
They're changing their license, even though XFree contains GPL code.
They might well be writing FREEWARE (don't confuse gratis with freedom, there) but I think they probably would care if their code wasn't being used by anywhere near as many people as it was previously.
GNU/Linux wouldn't be without a graphical desktop, there's a wealth of projects out there.
Please take a look at http://www.freedesktop.org/
Join the Free Software Foundation
Although this license issue is a pain, we'll see all sorts of people claiming that "XFree86 sucks anyway" and "freedesktop.org's X server will be much better". What problems do people have with XFree86, that transparency and other superficial redundancies are going to solve?
God forbid we have a windowing system that:
1) Puts out well-tested, stable releases
2) Generally sticks to a solid release schedule
3) Doesn't depend on a zillion other libraries
4) Will still work happily on 486s
XFree86 has been a very good project. The freedesktop.org X server, though, will be very difference once the GNOME and KDE folks get involved. The nice, clean config file will be replaced by some arcane XML format. Features will be piled in on a whim, without long-term planning. It'll require libfoo-1.6.1pl3 but not any earlier or later. It'll take twice as long to start up, and need 64MB RAM to work.
Look at what's happening to GNOME and KDE (overengineering, bloat, chasing Moore's law). Now imagine what'll happen when these same developers start working on an X server. Aaargh.
Note: this is NOT flamebait; it's a serious issue. XFree86 has been a flagship open source project, and still values elegance, efficiency and sane releases.
Yes, I know the FSF say it is, but it is a simple assertion that I have been unable to find explicit justification for. The only justification given in their statement is that it is awkward and impractical when in common use, this does not make it incompatible, it just means they don't like it.
Not the same thing.
I can see their point about not liking it, and not wanting to use it, I just don't see an explicit incompatibility.
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
The xfree86 V4.4 license adds
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution, and in the same place and form as other copyright, license and disclaimer information.
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.
vs.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
So I take a look at the new license. I'm thinking "What the hell is the problem?"
So I read some comments and see this reference to a mailing list post about some of the licensing issues. In there I see things that don't exist in the license on the XFree86 site (like a reference to clause 6 even though the XF86 license only has 4 clauses).
So what's up?
The ratio of people to cake is too big
WTF is wrong with the XFree86 guys? At a time when the project's existence is at its most debatable, they change their license (why?) to enable most disties to drop the latest version. They may be technically smart, but they seem politically naieve.
--
This sig is inoffensive.
Why don't we first concentrate on getting 4.3 into unstable, hmmm?
what's the point of giving away your software if no one wants to use it? i could release a script that adds two numbers together and prints it out and release it under some say.. Y license, which happens to be free as in beer and as in freedom. now, does it matter if i give this away or make it free (i.e. freedom) if no one bothers to use it? how does the software evolve without a userbase? if joe sickspack (i hate saying sixpack) can't compile it, and distro-Z doesn't provide packages, and joe GNU won't compile it because it's not a true free license... then how does it become better? why bother?
I write code.
And since no one will ever want to buy a new computer with new hardware that requires new drivers we should be set forever. Dumbass troll.
The kicker is not this reasonable little change or the next one or the next, until the day when someone wants to add something that is a problem. So I can see why it's drawing a lot of reaction. It's not the nature of the change, it's the fact of the addition. I can kind of see where both sides are coming from.
Just fork 4.3 and get it over with. It's not worth everyone getting their knickers in a wad. My laptop can wait another year.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
What's with the people making these announcements? I read the comments by XFree86's David Dawes a while back - he only wrote about 2 lines or so, and hardly replied when people started asking for clarification.
Then Theo of OpenBSD in this thread writes a quick response rejecting the whole thing, again with absolutely no explaintation as to why, and what the specific problems are.
Then check out the posts in that thread from Darren Reed, getting shot down as a troll straight away for inquiring what the problem with it actually is!
This kind of discussion and attitude floating around turns me off OSS a little. The last thing I want to see is multiple implementations of X servers in wide use, different ones on different distributions, some doing some things, others doing things a little differently. And of course yet more duplication of effort, re-writing code, etc. Seems a shame. Seems like we just have more fragmentation to look forward to.
Maybe they could put all the credits into a separate file which states who did what ?
I'm sure this is more easy to handle than having to read all files for hidden gotchas.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
Its not really a matter of tryin' to force people into using the GPL. This is done to avoid things like this: from: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html "When people put many such programs together in an operating system, the result is a serious problem. Imagine if a software system required 75 different sentences, each one naming a different author or group of authors. To advertise that, you would need a full-page ad. This might seem like extrapolation ad absurdum, but it is actual fact. NetBSD comes with a long list of different sentences, required by the various licenses for parts of the system. In a 1997 version of NetBSD, I counted 75 of these sentences. I would not be surprised if the list has grown by now. " There are other reasons, but this one is good enough to justify the clause. The FSF has a bit of a problem because of its amazingly idealist vision. From what I could tell, Richard Stallman has fully embraced that vision...its truly amazing. ^_^ Anyways, there are plenty of licenses out ther that are neither GPL nor bring problems with it.
I am a speak english. Do you not? - Saroto
They are independent of the brand of X server, so why should it make a difference?
What about people that use nvidia cards? This makes things problematic for those of us that use their proprietary drivers because the open ones suck.
It's the most concise explanation of the new licensing and ultimately how it breaks compatibility with the GPL.
I've been using debian unstable for the longest time now and I don't even remember 4.3 being available I thought the highest version they have on the official sites was 4.2? I had to go and find some deb files to install 4.3 (I was trying to get the ATI driver to work for my new video card, took forever and then I replaced it with a GeForce FX anyway, and the drivers don't work on my other computer, damn I wish ATI had better linux support.)
It's kind of like Libya saying, "Hey we're gonna stop our nuclear weapons program"
"But sir we don't have one..."
"So, no one needs to know that!"
Can you imagine RMS changing the GPL so that it would have a similar clause? So that GNU/Linux (or GNU/Whatever) would be manditory?
What the hell is wrong with the XFree86 team? It's like they're constantly trying to piss everyone off, with their closed development attitude, kicking out anyone who wants to improve X (ie. Keith Packard, the only real X hacker remaining these days) and now their stupid and completely uncalled-for license change. I'll be glad when Keith's fd.o Xserver will be ready for prime time.
Why this might be a good time to start developing Y: the successor to the X window system.
I write code.
-nt-
So I take a look at the new license. I'm thinking "What the hell is the problem?"
... free software stands on its adherence to copyright law (all of our free licenses are written on its basis, and while it is fundamentally a medieval censorship regime, it is currently the only legal framework we have). Distributing KDE/Gnome et al in violation of its license, or XFree 4.4 in violation of its license, is unacceptable. So, we can either dump 14+ years of free software development of applications based on XFree (the vast majority of which are under the GPL, contributed and maintained by thousands of developers), or we can dump XFree 4.4 (developed and maintained by a handfull of core developers) and stick with one of the forks instead.
Run any GPLed X apps? Like, say Gnome, Enlightenment, or KDE? Mozilla perhaps?
If so, congratulations. By linking to XFree 4.4 and redistributing the program, you are now in violation of the GPL (at the very least) and, depending on EXACTLY what you do (how you link, what you display on your splash screen, etc.) perhaps the new XFree 4.4 license as well.
No distribution in its right mind is going to want to run afoul of the GPL and thereby the entire Linux community and the FSF. And rightly so
Guess which one loses (hint: the Community isn't about to dump 14+ years of development by countless thousands to appease the vanity and contrariness of a few).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Who needs X11, we could all downgrade to PostScript based NeWS.
all of our free licenses are written on its basis, and while it is fundamentally a medieval censorship regime, it is currently the only legal framework we have
"it" should read "copyright":
all of our free licenses are written on its basis, and while copyright is fundamentally a medieval censorship regime, it is currently the only legal framework we have
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
It's just a little less convenient
Isn't that 'a little less convenient' as in 'a little more difficult' for Joe Windows to switch to a Linux distribution? (Won't they assume that the latest version of software is the best?)
In the supposed Linux 'Year of the Desktop', surely this is a bad idea?
Take care.
Ken.Lewis
Who are the OSS's real enemies?
How can the community fight when there's no consensus of a common goal, and there's such a lack of good faith and no respect for other people's projects and plans?
And since no one will ever want to buy a new computer with new hardware that requires new drivers we should be set forever. Dumbass troll.
XFree86 has already been forked by former members of their core team, so driver development will continue.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
This license change can only mean one thing:
The people in charge of the xfree86 project are totally out of touch with the users AND the developers of the project they purport to run.
Oh well, now we can smack our foreheads, realize we should just have thrown all our support behind the guys who were voicing this opinion and do it now. Hopefully the new license for the alternative xfree86 version we will all start using will be gpl.
Liberty.
It's similar in the 3D animation world. There are a lot of 'free' models out on the web which have some wacko license saying that you can use them freely but must provide attribution to the author... the end result is that I just won't use any such item because if I create a scene with a hundred objects I might end up having to provide attribution for fifty people and if I miss one then theoretically they could come whining. That basically makes them useless and requires people to make their own models for the same objects... it's just pointless and silly.
Then again, 3D modellers have a big stick up their ass about free use, when compared to GPL programmers.
It used the old XFree86 license, which has historically been lumped in the BSD-ish license category. You could re-distribute the code as long as you kept source attribution and the license in place.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
(2) If only executable code is distributed, then the accompanying documentation must state that "this software is based in part on the work of the Independent JPEG Group".
Why is it that distributors don't worry about libjpeg?
main(O){10<putchar((O--,102-((O&4)*16| (31&60>>5*(O&3)))))&&main(2+ O);}
LN2 is cool!
If the problem is with programs which link with the XFree86 code, doesn't this mean that the libraries are the problem, not the server? IANAE, but presumably a client compiled with any implementation of the client libs will work with any implementation of the server. So why not just ditch the XFree86 libs in favour of the freedesktop xlibs, and use the XFree86 server. This way you still get the hardware support of XFree86, but no license compatability problems. The freedesktop xlibs are supposed to be mature enough, appart from still requiring XFree86 to build them, but this can't be a big problem to solve, surely.
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
lenny@benny:~$ apt-cache show xfree86-common | grep Version
Version: 4.2.1-16
I understand the intent behind the new license, but it isn't practical for the distros. They made their case, and if the license isn't changed then they won't use the product. Isn't that how licensing should work? That is better than the distros saying "Sorry, we can't abide by these terms, but we are going to use your software anyway." At first I thought there might be bullying here by the distros, but XFree made the licensing change, the distros are the ones who have to choose whether to abide by it or not. Seems like the little guy has the power here.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
The basic problem is that there is no convention for listing contributors. You would think that it was not beyond the intellect of FOSS developers to come up with something suitable.
For instance:
If the standard was that the flag -contrib listed contributors, and dedications, together with the name of the program, then it would be simple to gather a list. And the work of gathering a list is what teh complaint is about.
Once you have the list, it's not difficult to display it on request or put it in a file.
It might also be a good idea to have a standard comments format (easily parseable) at the top each source file with the same info. You might need to define a format per language. I'd imagine something like
I've used an XML style above, but don't get hung up on that - it's a detail that doesn't matter right now. It could be
And guess what.. if you have the list in the source in a standard format, you can easily create the code for the contrib flag.
Really it's plain old good fashioned courtesy. If someone creates something that you are using then you should be acknowledging it.
And now for a political subtext... The whole issue with the naming GNU/Linux vs Linux is about attribution. To my mind it's unreasonable on the one hand to campaign for recognition in this way, and on the other to have a GPL that is incompatible with giving credit where it is due. It seems to me that there is a strong streak of not-invented-here at work.
Bozo.
The link seems to be Slashdotted and I don't know where else to look up this information, and I am not familiar with the ins-and-outs of the XFree license... but anyway, here is my possibly very ignorant question:
Is there anything legally preventing another group from taking the XFree source and creating a fork that is GPLed?
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
Red Hat distributes Apache, OpenSSL, xinetd, all with GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses What is weird is Apache claims their license is compatible. What i'm really asking is why are all these projects able to get away with it?
The poster talks about Redhat rejecting XFree86 4.4. But fails to supply a link.
Redhat's rejection
Back to Minix, I say! Things were BETTER then!
And we LIKED it that way!
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
which branch does nvidia take
Ahhh, the song of the proprietary victim.
#include
i could release a script that adds two numbers together and prints it out and release it under some say.. Y license,
You just described 85% of OSS projects.
I just don't get it... there are lots of GPL incompatible licenses and nobody says anything about it. In fact, most Linux distributions ship that software. It seems that the only problem is the GPL license... am I wrong?
...
GPL Incompatible Licenses:
The original BSD license, the OpenSSL license, the Apache License, the Mozilla Public License, the Netscape License, the PHP license, the Apple Public Source License,
GPL Incompatible Licenses
I love when discussions turn to how to get around the licensing issues to move kernel code from Linux into XFree86 driver code.
Nobody seems to want to examine the obvious solution; GPL XFree86.
And before you suggest changing the Linux kernel license instead, remember that there are more people who'd have to agree to that than the reverse.
Drivers for the Alpha version of Windows or the MacOSX version of PPC for the Nvidia graphics card...
Oh, that's right, there isn't a market for Nvidia to make/sell cards for those markets...
We know as a general rule that the number of Linux users running on x86 hardware is tiny in comparison to the number of Windows users and we also know that the number of PPC and Alpha Linux users are even smaller then that... That's why. It's pretty simply economics.
Get your head out of the "New Economy" world it is living in and take a better look at reality. If there isn't a market for your product or service, then the product or service won't sell no matter how much you attempt to sell it to someone. If the market for your product is so tiny that you have just a 10,000 outside of the mainstream market of 20 to 30 million, then you have to charge those 10,000 an insane amount of money just to make back your research and development costs. Which makes supporting/selling to that tiny market a waste of time more then anything else.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
I don't really know much about the XFree86 project except what I read here on ./ I'm sure a lot of readers are similar. So can anyone clarify who's responsible for this fiasco? I keep on reading about this David Dawes guy but I thought that the main problem with the XFree86 project was the core team who were the main people antogonising X developers and that they disbanded a while ago? Who is this David Dawes guy then? How could he have made this decision about the license change himself so suddenly? Surely something like this would have had to go through a long discussion process with the XFree86 community, consultation, flame wars etc. and the community leaders would have to come to an agreement together? So why are people blaming him?
Thanks!
Maybe they could call it GNU/Xfree86 and keep everyone happy? :)
(There's something sickly ironic about a vanity clause being an issue towards any license dreamed up by Stallman).
On the practical side, however, you're entirely correct of course. Again with the irony, this being the reason I refuse to start calling the OS I run GNU/Xfree/KDE/Linux.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
There has been talk about alternative Window systems in the past. The only thing that has been preventing the acceptance of any of these newer, faster systems is the current momentum of XFree.
Given the mass rejection of the current XFree (4.4) it would seem that not only should 4.3 be used, but also options for other window systems as well.
Making such significant changes is always a pain at first... or perhaps it's not the pain everyone thinks it might be.
I enjoy the interest in Linux I inspire at work when I bring my laptop in. They see that it doesn't behave significantly different from Windows and when I point out that it currently does every function that WindowsXX does for them with the possible exception of games, it makes them all the more curious to try it in light of the fact that it makes them VERY immune to email-born viruses and the like.
I draw this as a parallel to the reluctance that still exists in switching from XFree to another graphical environment.
Put this into your /etc/apt/sources.list:
.. or something like that. I never remember which packets I need to specify to replace all of the old xfree86.
deb http://ftp.YOURLOCATION.debian.org/debian experimental main non-free contrib
deb-src http://ftp.YOURLOCATION.debian.org/debian experimental main non-free contrib
Then, as root:
apt-get install -t experimental xfree86-common xserver-common xfonts-100dpi xfonts-base xlibs x-window-system x-window-system-core
Of course, this is the perfect time for all the "We need to get rid of X." people to put up or shut up.
Sure it's not as fast as fluxbox. But KDE has become really nice now. 3.1.* was a real pain in the ass, and kde 3.2 solved quite a few bugs and stability/speed issues.
You should try out recent windowing environments before you spout off about them.
...the advertising clause states that all adverts for the product must include the reference that certain portions were created elsewhere.
This just states that in the distrobution SOMEWHERE you have to state that "this bit was made by xxx".
I am NaN
The problem with "the contributor clause" applied at the license level is that it is very pervasive. After all, why use a license that isn't pervasive?
So XFree has to list contributors. Anyone who writes an extention to XFree now has to list these contributors plus any contributors to make there extention work. Depending on how another developer uses that extention, they might have to carry all of those contributor forward as well. But a month has gone by since the original extention was released and more contributions have been made. To keep up to date not only do you have to sync source but sync contributors.
As for the GPL, the reason for incompatibility is that to use the GPL you must not put any more restrictions on the code no matter how innocent or benign you think they are. Sacrificing the freedom of the code just to make sure someone's name is plastered in the right spots is selfish. There are proper places to site contributsion. Just not at the license level.
This is the reason why it was a good thing that BSD abandoned this thing. I'm all for giving credit where credit is due but not at the license level. It gets to be a meta-maintaince nightmare to adhere to the license.
Because you cannot make money out of it anyway?
Bottom line: If it's not open-source, it should be ejected.
This is actually fairly convenient, because X has not kept up for a long time. It's an unneeded intermediary, which slows things down and has too many bugs. It's time to reduce X's role.
Campaign finance reform is national security.
Arrgh, this is not informitive - those links don't give any information about the new licence xfree86 is using.
It looks like freedesktop.org is going to clean up and re-implement from the second pre-release up at the moment. This will give an alternative to XFree86.org's release of code until a better alternative is mature enough. Continuing on and forking from the last stable snapshot released under the 1.0 license is probably the sanest option.
Changing to a license that breaks many of the current derivative projects isn't a good idea. Especially in light of the fact that XFree86 is made up of many contributions in addition to the core codebase, many of which were added under the spirit of the original license.
You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
-1, wrong:
They're changing their license, even though XFree contains GPL code.
Where? Find one snippet, I challenge you! Incorporating GPL'ed code into Xfree86 under the Xfree86 licenses. (both 1.0 and 1.1) would be illegal.
Thus speaks the GPL:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
I hope FreeDesktop succeeds. Copyleft is really a good thing, and it baffles me how XFree86 has been consistently refusing it.
At one point they actually stated that was because of contributions from proprietary vendors, but I fail to see why someone who actually has a proprietary product will refuse to use the GPL, thus preventing other proprietary vendors from hoarding his code.
Then there is the thing with proprietary drivers, like nVidia. To these I say Good ridance!
When the X Group wanted to change its license to a proprietary one, in order to prevent hoarding, I suggested them using the GNU GPL. They even entered conversations with the FSF, but XFree86's refusal aborted the copylefting of X. I think that was incredibly dumb. Anyone may disagree, but I think that would have protected us from this farse now and perhaps would have got us better, more free drivers.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
When you get to hell -- tell 'em Itchy sent ya!
The simple truth is XFree86 is not capable of the features one should expect from a modern display system. Take one look at Mac OS X's Quartz Extreme in a CompUSA to get a good example as to why XFree86 (NOT X11, that isn't the problem) needs to shape up it's act.
Really? Specifically what problems do you have with XFree86, or are you just talking about the most common themes in XFree86 desktop environments?
Let the ludites running 486's keep their XFree86, and let us get on with our lives using a modern X11 implementation with real features like true transparency
You know, one of the things that people like about Linux is that it doesn't have crazy hardware requirements. Unlike OS X, or, to a lesser extent, Windows.
Transparency can be nice, but honestly, it adds very little functionality to a desktop environment. Antialiased text was a different story -- it allows a user to be given more data, by using gray levels. Plain old window transparency isn't good for a lot other than eye candy. And that eye candy is largely novelty ("look, I have transparent windows!"), and not necessary a long-term draw. I've tried working with transparent windows, and never been too impressed. Generally, interfaces are fairly modal at the window level -- I'm working with a single widget, and don't need to see what's behind it, and I'd rather devote the pixels composing that widget to making the widget easily recognizable, instead of giving some information about what's behind it. It just makes it harder to see what's being worked on. The reason windows are draggable is so that you can drag them into a configuration where you can see both windows that you're working with for the rare occasions when you need to have multiple windows visible at once.
There are a few cases for transparency. It's nice for onscreen display type elements -- if someone wants to display song titles from their player, for example, they might be into displaying it transluencly. Frankly, though, the desktop metaphor is not a transparency-oriented one, and I've yet to see good improvements suggested to it that require translucency.
vector scaling
XFree86 can do vector graphics via OpenGL.
and GPU acceleration.
XFree86 has extensive support for both 2d and 3d acceleration.
May we never see th
Yeah, it does potentially suck as a distro source for the X guys, but it's not the end of the world.
;)
If you're really looking forward to the 4.4 release, upgrade to it. AFAIK there's not a single attempt to exclude the process of installing XF864.4, only that it will not be included in specific distros.
If you feel strongly about the issue, send an email to your favorite distributor and ask for them to include it. Make suggestion to include both version (4.3 and 4.4) and allow the user to consciously choose which version they wish to install (with a written preface explaining why).
Finally, remember, you have the ultimate power to decide which pieces will make up the whole of your OS. The beauty of being a Linux (or *BSD) user is that you are complete able to dictate the creation of your OS... and ther are many people who will be pleased as punch to asist if something goes wrong.
This is politics, and I do actually understand the view from either side. How it all plays out, fortunately, is (at least at this time) moot. If I choose to switch to Gentoo, Mandrake or Fedora... I can always install 4.4 myself. As can we all.
Oh, don't I just feel the swelling of a patriotic theme surging behind me? I think I might shed a tear...
----
rage
#SickNotWeak
Awww, you might have to provide a single line attribution of text in exchange for hundreds of hours of free work? You might even have to provide 50 lines for an entire project? Man, that is a real hardship!
It sets it back to 4.3. That's hardly 10 years.
Your mother told you a million times not to exagerate.
Infuriate left and right
I suspect that the politics and feelings involved in XFree86 are a lot more complicated and have been going on for longer than Slashdot's random and recent reporting on the subject.
For all I know, Dawes could be an awful person, but (from a wholely ignorant outside viewer) it seems that the Slashdot story submitters have a habit of slagging on him a bit much.
I think that, no matter what, some kind of fork is going to happen. This really sucks, because if Dawes and the other core folks are willing to take all the crap they get (XFree86 and X11 may be two of the most unjustly maligned projects I know of) and can handle such a large package (there are *verY* few projects the size of X11 that constantly run as root, directly access hardware, and must remain stable and responsive)
I do hope that there isn't any bad blood over it. The Samba team managed to work things out without pain in much the same way the gcc team did. Basically, the folks that felt that the package needed to be stable just sat on their version and maintained it, only slowly improving it. The other folks took a version and ran with it, throwing tons of features in and going absolutely crazy. And in both cases, the projects were eventually re-merged (once the new fork was stable). They became simply long-term unstable branches under different leadership.
May we never see th
You're completely correct. Mod me down folks.
Join the Free Software Foundation
i hate saying sixpack
But you just said it! HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!!!!!
While I can see the point of some of this, surely it isn't up to distro maintainers to decide which licences I can and can't accept for me.
I thought the whole point of this was to get away from people dictating licence terms and allow free choice by the USERS rather than software suppliers.
This whole thing probably isn't going to make me stop using XFree86, rather it is going to make it more inconvenient for me to do so as I will have to download it and compile it from source.
That's MY decision to make, not someone elses.
BTW: the wording of the new X11 license should probably be fixed/clarified too. There are several what-ifs that are not answered by the license text.
regards,
CJ
BSDed code is not in any way subject to being 'broke' by this license. GPL is because it specifically breaks the (IIRC) 3rd clause of the GPL, by added extra encumberment to the distribution of the software. BSD-style license do not have any similar such clause.
For God's sake people, stop asking the same question over and over. Read this:
[forum] [XFree86] Announcement: Modification to the base XFree86(TM) license.
Sven Luther forum@xfree86.org
Sun, 1 Feb 2004 17:48:57 +0100
* Previous message: [forum] Re: Announcement: Modification to the base XFree86(TM) license.
* Next message: [forum] [XFree86] Announcement: Modification to the base XFree86(TM) license.
* Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 11:58:38AM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
> Announcement: Modification to the base XFree86(TM) license.
Hello,
As discussed with David, i am taking discussion concerning the
problematics aspects of this licence change here. I think i understand
somewhat the reasons behind the licence change, but i wonder if all the
consequences of it have been thought of before doing the change.
Also, there are some confusing wording in one of the clause, which i
believe would best be clarified as to what the interpretations of them
by the XFree86 project are.
Also, first notice that my position is actually quite inconfortable,
since i am here mentioning the concerns of wider community and criticize
the new xfree86 licencing, in other forums, i usually do the opposite,
and take xfree86 side on this, so please do not react badly, and let's
have a rationale conversation about this, so that things can all be
resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
1) Possible confusion.
The following clause is the most problematic of all the licence, and as
such it would be nice to clarify it before starting a polemic about it.
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.
Ok, what does this mean exactly ? If there is a end-user documentation,
but it contains no third-party acknowledgement part, do you still have
to put the acknowledgement or not ? Also, is the choice between putting
the acknowledgement in the end-user documentation or the software a
choice that is free to make, or is the second an alternative only if
there is no enduser documentation. And what do you mean by in the
software itself ? If this software is a linux distribution for example,
would a file on the CD which is copied to the disk be enough ?
2) GPL incompatibility.
This selfsame clause is also the one which clashes with the clasue 6) of
the GPL.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
And in the 'you may not impose any further restrictions' part. Since the
GPL does not force you to add acknowledgement in the end-user
distribution, then the clause 3) of the 1.1 XFree86 licence is indeed a
further restriction, which cause an incompatibility with GPLed software.
Now this is again modulated with the exact interpretation that is given
in the above point.
3) Where is the derivative work boundary ?
The problem is further muddled by the place where the boundary for
something being considered a derivative work. The GPL, contrary to the
LGPL, considers that everything linked with a another binary is a
derivative work
I believe Clause 4 of the GPL is the crux:
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
Maintaining a list of contributors at the license level is a violation of Clause 4. You can not impose extra restrictions on GPL software and still be compliant under the GPL no matter how benign you think it is. If you think a list of contributors is harmless, I suppose I could make software but make a license such that only people named "Bob" can validly modify and still call it GPL.
I'm not sure what is the grounds for invalidity under BSD code but I suspect its the same problem. Imposing a restriction on software flies in the face of FOSS.
The real question is... Is any distribution going to include XFree 4.4 ? What are the other major distributions like Suse saying about it? Seems like no one is going to be using Xfree 4.4... And the XFree86 people are going to think seriously about changing back their license...
Red Hat distributes Apache, OpenSSL, xinetd, all with GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses What is weird is Apache claims their license is compatible.
Because they aren't linked together into one application.
Every XFree applications either links to an X library, or links to a library that links to an X library (insert as many levels of indirection as you wish).
Now that the x library licenses are no longer GPL compatible, every GPL X application is no longer legal for use with XFree 4.4. Which is the death of XFree, as we aren't about to throw out Enlightenment, Gnome, Mozilla, etc.
Far easier and more sensible to start using Xouvert or FreeDesktop than to dump millions of man-hours of contributed work simply to appease the vanity and anti-GPL zealotry of a few, regardless of how great their contribution was in years past.
In other words: License compatability between independent apps isn't an issue (each app's license can be adhered to independent of the others). License compatability between apps and the libraries they link to is absolutely critical, and XFree 4.4 breaks this with most of the applications that link to it. Which means Sianara XFree 4.4.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
and some people wonder why some business are slow to adopt open source software for their applications
and yet another problem with 'free' software. So the consumers want a diffrent license for they won't use XFree86. What's going to happen? The XFree86 people are going to lose money over the deal? Where is there real incentive to change things other then to not piss off a bunch of geeks that one day bitch about copyrights and licensing of music and on the next bitch that a project and how it's affecting copyrights and licenses
Copyright law forbids removing copyright notices, but it does not require you to include additional ones.. this does.
Second, this has nothing to do with trademark. If I write "DogOS" I can license it to you under the condition that you do not call your version "DogOS".
If you wrote your OWN system from scratch, and called it DogOS, then I would have to have a trademark in order to stop you.. but I can certainly set the conditions under which I will permit youto use MY copyrighted work.
From what I can tell from the discussion here, XFree does not contain GPLed code. As a matter of fact, if the old XFree86 license and the GPL are actually incompatible, it had *darn* well better not.
There are a few people saying that code that was submitted to the Linux kernel was also submitted to XFree86 -- all that means is that the author did an implicit dual license.
May we never see th
Grab it, strip out the license, and compile it. Fuck'em if they don't like it, what they going to do about it. Remember once it hits the net, its yours do with as you please.
The license change is not as bad as people are saying. The license has not been changed for the sections of code that link to clients, so you don't have to worry that no GPL program can use X. All of the programs that were previously able to link to X can still do so. However, that doesn't mean that the license isn't obnoxious, and if it causes all of the distributions to drop support for XFree86 4.4, then it's going to be pretty hard to keep.
The problem is that OSS developers are often arrogant, stubborn asses. There's a certain point at which you either have to bow to political pressure or face being shut out. I understand the desire to be credited for your work, but I don't think this is a fight that the XFree86 guys can win. They either have to back down or they're going to get worked around. I just hope this doesn't cause a fragmentation in Linux that will be long-term detrimental.
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
If you want xfree 4.4, download it and compile it. It's bizarre to complain that someone else is preventing you from using it. What right do you have to force them to use it? Why does everyone have to act according to your convenience?
Though it's quite likely that the original poster was implying that XML is inherently arcane, "some arcane XML format" only explicitly states that it is probable that the new config file that uses XML will be arcane on its own merits.
Also, having to mentally parse out the valuable info -- "ZAxisMapping = 4.5" -- from the surrounding detritus -- " -- is tiring on the eyes and mind, and all that extra tag junk makes it hard to format all the information in such a way that makes it easy for the eyes to flow over it as you can fit less info that matters per line.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
While I can see the point of some of this, surely it isn't up to distro maintainers to decide which licences I can and can't accept for me.
No, but it is up to the distro maintainers to not break the law, which they would do if they distributed GPL'd software linked against libraries which are under a license that explicitly conflicts with the GPL. As has been explained by several people, multiple times in this thread.
You assume too much. For those who don't want bloat there's versions of 3.3.x and 4.x and stuff from fd.o which can be put off.
Same as with the Linux kernel!
Rex Code
...is because of issues like this. Idealistic licensing issues.
They may have actually killed X....
.if they ruin the licensing of the most commonly used implementation or X11, and no one wants to touch it with a 10 foot pole, they have for all practical purposes killed it.
No, I'm serious.
Up next: severe fragmentation and potential wide spread incompatibilities as people try to regroup...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The Linux desktop movement is based in an idea of Freedom. To accept a less than 'free' desktop for the 'free' desktop movement would not make sense.
Only to Linux idealogues. The rest of the computing world doesn't care about the community's "idea of Freedom." They care about results.
Amusingly, the very creator himsef of the Linux kernel doesn't share you're strict definition of using things that are only "free." I think the most hilarious thing about the community is the fact that while they in-fight over various things, Linus just uses whatever works for him.
One thing I learned in legal practice is it doesn't matter who is right or wrong but what the consequences are and to what degree can you live with them.
If Linux can live without XFree and Xfree can live without Linux, then fine. If not, the one who will lose the most will change.
You can dismiss concerns all you like provided you'll live with the consequences. All the pissing contests are a waste of time.
Professional neogotiators don't try to convince. They simply state the consequences.
IAAL(ayman)
From the new XFree license (emphasis added):
- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer.
- Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution, and in the same place and form as other copyright, license and disclaimer information.
- 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.
- Except as contained in this notice, the name of The XFree86 Project, Inc shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from The XFree86 Project, Inc.
The GPL pretty much says that the only restrictions you can place on redistribution are the restrictions in the GPL. You can't add any other restrictions, however harmless they seem -- I guess the argument is that it's the start of a slippery slope, and IIRC some of the old UNIX systems had to have 3 screens worth of notices like that one.I guess I can see RMS's point: if you let XFree require this notice, maybe Apache will want a notice too. And maybe Wall would want a similar notice for Perl. OK, that's annoying but we could live with it, even if we end up back in the UNIX days of multi-screen credit notices.
But then suppose NVidia releases a driver and says that you have to include an advertisement (not just a credit) for NVidia if you distribute it with the kernel -- or rather, they specify a credit message that many people would consider an advertisement. Well, now we've clearly crossed a line most Linux developers don't want to cross, but it's not exactly clear where that line was in the scenario I just mentioned. NVidia would say "all the other developers got to come up with their own credit text, why can't we say what we want to? If you don't let us have our free speech the terrorists have already won!"
And they'd have a point: if you let some people dictate terms to the GPL you don't have much grounds to keep others from dictating terms, and however innocent the first terms may seem, somebody will find a way to screw it up.
So, you have to kick the camel in the nose while that's still all he has in your tent.
All's true that is mistrusted
Okay, NOW can we get a replacement for XFree86? Pretty please?!
I'm not even talking about the "slowness" or "bloat"--there are fundamental architectural reasons why we need to get off this 20 year old application that still requires us to configure it with a bizarrely formatted text file. I still haven't been able to figure out how to enable all the buttons on my mouse, including the scrollwheel, no matter what solutions I try online. And we only recently got the ability to change resolutions without restarting!
Seriously--this will NOT fly if people are to be accepting Linux as their main desktop. I could go on and on, but I'll just plead with some good coder to please start a new project or lend help with some of the ones already out there--we need to get off of XFree86.
I want to know what the difference is between the quoted snipets and the XFree86 license.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
It's called "draconian licensing issues." I hear Slashdotters bitch about it from Microsoft all the time.
Is it just me, or does David Dawes sound like an entirely unsuitable person to be entrusted with the leadership of a big project like XFree? I have no idea how l33t a coder he is, and it doesn't really matter. To be a good leader of a project you need to have enormous regard for the stability of the development effort. Cases in point: Linux and GNU. The Linux development effort has changed very little since the early days (the biggest change I can remember was moving to BitKeeper). The license has remained the same; everyone knows what the score is and how to get things done. It works. GNU: everyone knows what license is used for GNU software. For many of the tools the development process seems a bit arcane (maybe I just don't know as much). But everything keeps running nicely. The only occasion I can remember was the gcc/egcs split a few years ago and that wasn't really due to instability in the development effort, rather due to a wish by some people to have a livelier development tree. Eventually all was merged back together and everything went merrily on its way. Again, stability.
Now consider XFree. Code can be licensed under one of several licenses; the whole kaboodle is also licensed under an additional license. This changes every so often, apparently without much notice or reason given. It's no wonder the distributions have finally had enough - now there are other X implementations approaching readiness I bet quite a few are getting ready to leave the sinking XFree ship. Now all we need is nVidia drivers for od.o...
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
There is no "Linux Operating System" - it's GNU/Linux, or even GNU.
No--it's Linux. Linux is the system operating my computer. I can remove GNU applications (I rarely use them anyway) and keep using Linux. It's the one running my hardware and booting my laptop and letting me use it.
GNU/Linux is ugly, wrong, and suggests we should prefix all our operating systems with the app userspace--Office/Windows? XFree86/GNU/Linux? Give me a break.
It does not seem important, but it is to al lot of people on /. (and if you do not like it do not read these subjects, i excluded all patent subjects for that reason)
There are 2 mayor reasons:
-If you are a programmer you contribute to a project you do not want to run anyone with your source, or you might want that, that is very important to things you spend many hours on.
-If you are a user you do not later want to find out you have to pay someone for a licence (SCO) because it was not free software to begin with.
There are more roles to be thought of, and for all of these the definition of "free" is important.
The real problem is that the GPL sucks. It's difficult to work with and anytime you tell people that they rattle off how it's really about "protecting freedom" instead of "restricting freedom", all the while explaining all these things you _can't_ do with the GPL.
It's asinine and the GPL should be avoided where at all possible. I wish it would just die and the idealogues who promote it would just go away.
The place that Linux is making inroads right now is as an enterprise server platform. The licensing of XFree86 won't significantly affect that progress until Linux becomes a real threat on the desktop. So there is still some real time to sort out the licensing issues.
When one begins a software revolution based upon political and philosophical standings, how can differences about such things be 'inconsequential' or 'irrelevant'? The differences can and will be sorted out, one way or another, as many others have discovered.
In the end, like censorship, things like this will be 'interpreted as damage and routed around' by the Free Software Community.
Thinking outside my Head
As far as Stallman and his minions are concerned, Free means GPL. Any challenge to the GPL, however theoretical or unintentional, brings the zealots buzzing out of their hive of giant hornets, just spoiling for a fight. And they've been spoiling for this fight for years, purely on personality grounds.
That's the whole story. GPL or go to Hell. Nothing else.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I was just wondering, do you people think that XFree will revert their license, or will this cause the opensource community to get at work and create another X11 server which would replace XFree86? Personally I don't like the attitude of the XFree devel team with this license... smells a little too much like an attempt at licensing code without having people being aware of it, and sueing like SCO, with valid claims this time, no?
---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
Linux is ditching XFree86 - cool , so FreeBSD will be the only OS to ship a recent X.
This type of clause is not there for legal reasons, rather for ego boosting and free advertisement. "I wrote this, therefore you must include me in all public advertisement." It burdens any distributors to include the advertisement clause with any archive, CD image, or boxed sets they make available to the public. This advertisement will cost money somewhere along the chain of disbursement. Whether it is in the cost of publication or the number of bits downloaded on the Internet, money is the issue. So, XFree.org expects distributors to foot the bill for advertisement of XFree.org's product. Do you now understand why distributors are rejecting the software?
assert(expired(knowledge));
The BSD license has the 'credit' clause already, so in that world, at least, it doesnt seem like it would be a big deal..
Or did i miss something here?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Thread here:
here
A blog I run for the wealth
Why? Because using nVidia's drivers in any OS is a lot like sucking raw shit through a very thin straw. Some revisions simply won't compile. They refuse to release drivers for Linux 2.6. Tech support is nonexistant.
Fuck nVidia, I can't wait for the stock market to ruin them like it ruined @Home.
Help us build a better map!
How do the two respective environments handle irregular shapes? I thought you would at least be able to use transparency to accomplish that. I want triangular windows. No opacity involved at all with it's cluttering effect. Which one can help me best?
They have released drivers that support 2.6 and what distro where you having trouble getting them compiled under?
... on becoming irrelevant in the Linux community in 7 days. They did a hell of a job at it. :)
Richard Stallman regards both the new license and some of the old licenses used in the X Server as GPL incompatible but still free. Recently he successfully suggested a compromise with XFree86, which ensures that at least the the client side libraries stay GPL compatible.
The new license is nevertheless problematic because it requires distributors to change the end user documentation and all "other materials provided with the distribution". These changes require a lot of time, which can be spend better by improving one of the forks.
Any distro. And I haven't seen drivers for 2.6, just some guys who modded the existing ones outside the terms of the license.
Help us build a better map!
Here's what XFree say:
That's pretty clear.
Here's the two clauses that are contraversial:
The 'above copyright notice' is "Copyright (C) 1994-2004 The XFree86 Project, Inc. All rights reserved."
and
Nowhere does that say any thing about including them in advertising.
It does say that you should acknowledge them.
It's a form of payment. In just the same way as you the GPL requires you to pay by returning derivative work to the GPL pool, one of the XFree items for payment is inclusion in credits. There is nothing morally wrong with requiring to be included in credits as a cost for use of a work. It's wrong to deny someone credit for their work. So the solution is to sort out a mechanism where there is no burden to bear for crediting.
I reiterate...
The point of my original comment is that it needn't be a burden to any of this if only there was a sensible automatic mechanism for gathering the information.
Xfree license sucks
Netcraft confirms no usage
Xfree is dying.
The new license looks perfectly reasonable to me. Why is it such a big problem to include the contributor list in the docs? What *exactly* makes the license incompatible with the GPL as have been claimed more than once now? What makes people *that* upset about the license? When I compare the two, version 1.1. still looks extremely fair and non-restrictive to me.
I used their (NVIDIAs) provided installer and it appeared to happily create and install 2.6-compatible drivers just like it did for 2.4.x.
I haven't done any in-depth benchmarking but they seem to be fully functional, and I certainly didn't 'mod' anything.
Then you didn't look too hard. from the NVidia drivers page:
Linux Display Driver - IA32
Version: 1.0-5336
Operating System: Linux IA32
Release Date: January 26, 2004
Release Highlights
* Support for Linux 2.6 kernels.
* Fixed AGP failures on some VIA motherboards.
* Fixed a problem that prevented X from running on Samsung X10 laptops
As for the compile issue just make sure you use the same compiler that was used to compile the kernel. In Fedore Core 1 type export CC=gcc32 before you run the compile.
You haven't done a damn thing to help yourself and yet you blame NVidia. Sad.
Please contrast this with the desire for Linux to be referred to as GNU/Linux.
Apparently someone thought that they weren't getting enough credit for X. They want to grab it (and maybe even sell it) later on. Others have tried this before. A former open source music database created by OSS users was grabbed by the maintainer who wanted people to pay. Someone else created another, made sure it's open, people contributed, and now no one uses the old one. SCO is trying this stunt (and they don't even own the source). But at least they know that if they show the source, revenue will dry up. Apparently they don't know that they have to show the source, (and when they do, they are dead anyway). OSS is like a river flowing through soft sand. If you try to build a dam, water flows around it. Issuing a pain-in-the-ass licence is a dam. You can quickly change your mind, or get swept away (and become irrelevent) and have no one using your stuff. Think hard. If OSS can create a world-class operating system with hundreds of thousands of applications and dozens of window managers (and even a new bios), do you really think they can't build a new window system? Think hard!
It wasn't a problem until XFree86 changed their license,
I mean those who declined to distribute. Will they write their own implementation of X? Or will they hire people to dig through this steaming pile of crap that X turned into?
The XFree86 contributors should come off of their high horse and GPL the code while they are at it. The original contributions of Keith Packard and the original X team dwarf those of the Johnnie Come Lately "Core Team."
Might Xouvert.org become the preferred X branch now that XFree86 has gone rogue?
an ill wind that blows no good
It's in the latest COPYRIGHT.TXT in -current.
Fact: Xouvert is dying.
You don't have to be a Kreskin to predict Xouvert's future.
Red ink flows like a river of blood.
Etc.
This is so likely to get modded down, I hardly bother to post it, but here goes.
I fail to see what the big deal is. The 4.4 licence seems to simply demand credit where credit is due, i.e. an aknowledgement of the work that has gone into the project in the documentation of programs that use part of its code, and a request that distributions and the like that say "you can do x very cool thing", where x is because of XFree86, make some mention of the fact.
Yes, yes, I know that one can raise all sorts of questions about boundaries and what counts as derived works, though there is an enormous amout of FUD out there about much of that question.
It seems to me that GPL zelots are trying to dictate the licence of XFree. Well, fine. But I'm beginning to hope that XFree win this one - the new licence is certainly open source. It just makes life a little more awkward for some people. But then the GPL is quite proud of doing just that. If other projects have used XFree code without aknowledgement, well that was just bad manners anyway. And since the FSF is quite happy to tell people "no" when they find the GPL inconvenient and would rather have something under LGPL, I think XFree86 are well within their rights, though I do hope that they will clarify the wording.
N.
Like it or not XFree86 is still the only real alternative to a commerial XServer right now, just as JBoss is the only real alternative to commercial J2EE servers.
Slightly offtopic, but since the post has been modded insightful this really deserves a correction. There is a very real alternative to JBoss in the open-source world: JOnAS, which will be a certified J2EE server real soon .
You'd think that a bunch of grown men, capable of even writing software licenses, would be able to avoid throwing childish pissy fits about such trivial issues.
The point is: XFree86 is free (speech) and will continue to be so. They only "reinforced" the clause that says "Give credit to us for writing it" or so the mailing list post says.
I'f someone could give me a good reason why anyone should be rejecting the license, not more of this "Wah! Their license in incompatible with my license! Boohoo" nonsense, I'd likely shut up and live with it. I have heard no good reasons so far, why no one can use the new X11 license.
It's whining bitches who will ruin linux, the GPL, and free software.
There is nothing against giving credit where credit is due. I'm sure that all the distributions currently distributing XFree86 already do so. My Redhat installations has an XFree86 manpage with a lengthy "Authors" section for example.
As such I think common courtesy is being shown. It is the licence change that is changing it from common courtesy to something requiring legal interpretation and strict observance that makes it an burden.
I wonder who exactly isn't giving credit where credit is due. If all the major distributions are bundling it with reasonable documentation anyway then what is the point? It's like "copy-controlled" cds in that it has the unpleasant side-effect of placing undue burden on those who up till now have been doing the right thing anyway.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Lets define a licensing scheme and then ignore it completely.
Way to go if you want to defend works released under that licensing, sure way to mantain credibility on the licensing scheme.
Honestly, your logic sense is not working mister, go and fix it.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Not wanting to get on a SCO vs IBM argument, but is this action all a side effect of the SCO vs IBM issue in that they view this as a mean by which a trail for derrivate works for a given product can be obtained?
Maybe I misread it but doesn't this basically focuse on the binary versions, not the source? It seems the intent is that if someone includes a binary version of a product, then their needs to be some credit somewhere. If you look at code, you can see the credit; if you have a binary, how do you see the credit? You can either have an ad message when usage of the binary product, or update the documentation to give the credit.
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
I really don't think this is going to lead to any revolution or massive change in how various distros are put together, despite all the paranoia exhibited in the forums.
Look, the Xfree86 people know they have a great product, and they're trying to capitalize on that popularity now. That's fine, but they way they're doing it doesn't sit well with...well, with the rest of the Linux community, pretty much. So, seeing that, they'll just revert to their old license, and life will go on. The Xfree people have nowhere to go - Xfree86 is their product. The distros, on the other hand, have a virtual buffet line to select from (all arguments of some of the varying quality aside). I highly doubt that the leader of such an obviously influential project would toss it all away on a trivial licensing requirement.
When their numbers dwindled from 50 to 8, the dwarves began to suspect Hungry.
Since some of the concern is based on xlib, etc usage..can we just make the libraries LGPL and be done with this?
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
No, you haven't. If you distribute the source, you've mentioned the header files. If you're distributing binary, then the header files are nowhere to be found (they're not merged; they've been eaten).
If you've statically linked, then the license simply doesn't apply, since only the GPL and LGPL even pretend to apply to linked library code; the FSF's interpretation of "derived work" is completely idiosyncratic -- they share it only with SCO.
The whole notion of a "viral" software license is purely a creation of the FSF. Look at the software licenses for, e.g. the old Lattice C, Borland code, and so on -- it would never even occur to these guys that their license could have any effect at all on something written with it.
The GPL is viral only because it is specifically written to be. More normal licenses -- such as this one -- are not.
--Craig
XFree86 is an absolute pig to configure in some circumstances, the broken configuration tools supplied by certain distros don't help, and a complete re-write could be a very good thing indeed. Never mind the politics, or the fact that the distros are all rejecting the new licence for good reasons. In fact it is impressive to see the diverse distros sticking together on this. Software that has been maintained and modified for so many years invariably becomes a mess, and it is good to throw it away from time to time and start again.
An orderly move to new technology will do a lot to advance Linux and the several BSDs (any more OSs I have forgotten?) on the desktop, meanwhile the distros should stay as they are with the current version, and work towards maintaining compatability. SCO can of course go down the dead end road of the new version, as long as they don't try to sue those who went a better way and so allegedly damaged SCO's failing business. (Note to McBride: that idea of suing the FSF etc for damaging your business by doing something better is copyrighted by me under a very restrictive licence that does not allow its use by you.)
OK, so every copy of KDE and GNOME running on a Solaris or Tru64 box was either a) actually compiled on the box it's running on, or b) distributed illegally in binary?
Because the licenses for Sun and DigipaqHP implementations of X11 are about as GPL-incompatible as you can get.
(And if you use the FSF's "normally distributed with the operating system" dodge, then I'll just point out that RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, Gentoo and the rest normally "distribute X11 with the operating system", too.)
This whole brouhaha is just another sign that, by and large, the code produced by the open source community is of much higher quality than its level of thought on non-technical issues....
Anyone else find it ironic that companies using the GPL are complaining about an advertising clause in a BSD licensed software? What a bunch of hypocrits. Use FreeBSD. 'nuff said.
-- Sean Chittenden
Great, gentoo won't patch XFree 4.3 to build against kernel-headers-2.6 and it wont ship 4.4. Lovely, really.
Wrong. If you can link KDE or GNOME to Solaris or Tru64 libs and redistribute it (which you can), then there is no reason *any* XFree license should prevent you from doing the same.
(And if you use the FSF "distributed with the OS" copout, then the question becomes, "in what sense, precisely, is commercial X11 distributed with the OS which doesn't also apply to XFree with SuSE or RedHat?")
The distros are being stampeded; if you take a look at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html and check out some of the ones on the "compatible" list -- e.g.
-- it's obvious that many if not most of the compatible licenses require that certain statements be included in the documentation.This whole brouhaha is horse hockey.
the Community isn't about to dump 14+ years of development by countless thousands to appease the vanity and contrariness of a few
I dunno; it seems to me that they're about to dump a dozen years of XFree development (started by the much-maligned David Dawes in 1991, and maintained by the now-disbanded Core while at least half-a-dozen "revolutionary" new GUI paradigm projects for Linux started up with brass bands and died slow deaths) because of a fair amount of vanity and contrariness from GPL fans who don't really understand their own license....
Craig
I figure about 20% of this thread is people saying variants of "I don't see what the problem is". Which of course is the whole point *of* the thread. There have been multiple coherent and concise explanations of the problem for anyone who actually bothered to read it before posting their ignorance.
They want to license themselves into irrelavance, that's fine with me. There's plenty of other good implementations ready to take up the slack.
Like it's the only source based distro, NOT
Like it's the only distro with a package manager, NOT
Get a haircut, buy a suite, get a job, and use FreeBSD.
they have an xserver in the works, currently using the basic fbdev server for older systems for minute linux (well, the xserver is half done atm, trying to figure out a good way to package it atm)
it's under the xfree86 v1.0 license as well, so it's a bit friendlier.
Honestly, the management behind xfree86 is getting rediculous, and it wont survive into the next few years if the alternatives start showing improvement over it..
Distros routinely engage in systematic plagiarism, wiping out information that users might see suggesting that they weren't the ones who created the software.
If distros don't like it that developers have found that the GPL does not protect them, and don't like what they have to do to protect themselves, then they should behave like gentlemen, and not presume to make their names the most prominent feature of software mostly written by others.
This is the inevitable result of RedHat removing KDE's credits. When they did that, people all throughout the developer community started to understand that it could and would be done to them too. There is no other solution than what XFree has done that will solve distro plagiarism. Unfortunately this means that there will be unceasing and ugly tug-of-wars over who gets credited how, and it will go into the licenses, and a few of the licenses of various components will conflict, and it is happening because gentlemen who attribute properly are not the ones in control of the corporations who are moving in on Linux.
Users should support the crediting of developers. If you don't pay us money, then maybe you should make sure we have some other reason like reputation for writing software like academia is very careful to foster.
I would like to thank XFree for taking on a very difficult issue that needs addressing. Notice how threatening the distros find this. They know that if users think of developers as being responsible for the software, then it creates a major shift of power, and distros will have to sponsor more software to create brand reputation.
If XFree86 is out of so many distros., what we use for GUI?
That is because Darren Reed was trolling - he changed his ipfilter license in a way that made it unacceptable to OpenBSD, so some OpenBSD developers wrote a better replacement.
Why else would he interpose himself into such a highly emotive debate and then go on to make stupid insinuations (read the thread). The people calling him "troll" are well aware of this history.
I'm amazed by ignorance of people posting here. XFree never has a single license. Part of XFree code licenses never were GPL compatable by FSF definition. See: link at FSF site.
Other people don't think that dynamic linking can create any problem.
Nothing has changed in fact by that new license for XFree own contributions.