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."

Comments

Free Software

[Anarke_Incarnate]

Doesn't 'sell' well when it isn't free ;)

Kudos to the XFree86 project!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

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)!

Re:Doesn't seem as ugly as TeX's license

[gowen]

Well, the major difference is that TeX is as close to bug free as I expect I'll ever see a major piece of software to be.

And Don Knuth is a nice man, where as David Dawes went to the "Theo de Raadt Scholl Of Charm."

Debian rejects 4.4? Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't we first concentrate on getting 4.3 into unstable, hmmm?

Re:Debian rejects 4.4? Ha!

[mikeee]

Excellent. Debian will just stay on 4.3 until the copyrights on 4.4 expire, and move ahead then.

GNU/Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Strange behaviour...

[Anonymous Coward]

[no sarcasm]

That makes no sense and isn't relevant.

[/no sarcasm]

And to be really really save

[EachLennyAPenny]

Debian decided to stay with XFree86 4.2.1.

lenny@benny:~$ apt-cache show xfree86-common | grep Version
Version: 4.2.1-16

/me awaiting discussions about XFree86 4.4 licenses not until 2006-02-18. ;)

Support vendors with non-sucking free drivers!!

[Curtman]

which branch does nvidia take

Ahhh, the song of the proprietary victim.

#include

Re:The Question

[Gothmolly]

The license says none of that kind. Did you even *read* the new license?

You're new here, aren't you?

Re:The Question

[squiggleslash]

Hi Kev,

Here's the CD containing Wurzel Linux 2.0, I grabbed it from isos.org. They rock! I was getting transfer rates of 2.5kbps! Only took a month.

Anyway, just boot from the CD, and follow the prompts.

Oh yeah, before I forget: This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors.

Let me know if you have any problems,

Squiggy.

Re:What is the issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple there are hundreds of developers that have to be listed on every box that is sold. suse, mandrake They don't make boxes large enough to list every developer.

10 years my *ss

[A nonymous Coward]

It sets it back to 4.3. That's hardly 10 years.

Your mother told you a million times not to exagerate.

Maybe these guys should write a HOWTO

[Ryan Amos]

... on becoming irrelevant in the Linux community in 7 days. They did a hell of a job at it. :)

Re:Is the GPL license a problem?

[forlornhope]

The latest 2.2 version of the Linux kernel is: 2.4.23
Umm don't you mean that the latest 2.4 version of the Linux kernel is: 2.4.23?

Yes, thats part of the joke. When 2.6 was originally released that was displayed on kernel.org because(I assume) the scripts that automatically generate that page didnt yet know about 2.6 and it claimed the latest 2.2 kernel was 2.4.23.

Get it now?