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."
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
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
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.
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.
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.
(admittidly its not just any form of freedom the GPL is pushing)
The fdo xserver looks truly mouthwatering, but I believe that all the drivers will have to be rewritten to truly take advantage of it. If that is the case, not only will all the great free XFree DRI drivers have to be ported over, but ATI and nVidia would have to be convinced to rewrite their drivers to this new architecture.
Yeah, let's all start holding our breaths. At the moment, the fdo xserver is completely hardware unaccelerated and until the drivers are written, it will stay that way, negating any of its advantages. I really hope this project succeeds, but things like these make me worry.
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
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 new license requires you to place acknowledgement "This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", and requires for it to be "in the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments". Innocent as it sounds, it's actually a helluva loophole for lawyers that could sue your pants off for simply advertising, say, "with full iTunes DRM compatibility" on the cover of a boxed edition of your distro. Unless you really want to write "with full iTunes DRM compatibility and this product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors".
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.
Well, XFree is pretty important, no doubt about that. But, as I see it, there are two different problems here that ultimatly will affect XFree86 more than the distros:
1) The version that falls under this new license in not very different from the previous one. There are improvements (and to some people they are big, e.g. support for they card) but it's not like it's a totally different codebase, most people with supported cards would probably not even notice the need. This is important because this makes things very easy to fork, and that is an option under consideration (read Theo's mail, for example). Couple that with freedesktop.org xlibs (see RedHat post) and you have the basis of a new X without this licencing problems (read Branden's (Debian) mail about more specific licencing issues).
2) I keep hearing reactions from X contributors that "XFree86 is not about Linux", basicaly asserting they would be fine or even better withour all this Linux distros bitching about their work. Well, if GNU/Linux and the BSD's drop the new X who exactly is going to use as a standard installed part of the system? Solaris x86 users? XFree86 importance and relevance is directly related to the widespread use of the Free Unices.
I would like to had that I'm quite happy about the rejection of the new licence being transversal across distributions and OS's; Mandrake, Debian, RedHat, Gentoo, OpenBSD, probably more will come once they reach a decision. This consensus is important because when it's just the FSF and Debian taking a position people dismiss it as "political rubish". Browse the previous discussions on this issue and you'll see people saying that this licence is only wrong for the FSF and Debian and that their will include the new XFree86 because they are pragmatics bla,bla,bla. This widespread agreement in rejecting the new licence shows that this issues *are* important and that in the long run *more* important that having a new graphic card supported.
I am, of course, very grateful to the XFree84 Project for their work. The fact that this licencing change was made in such an ungraceful mode does not affect that.
I understand the philosophical disagreement with this new clause in XFree86 4.4, but I don't think it should be confused with the old BSD "advertising" clause. The latter posed a severe financial impact on each and every advertisement a company might want to deploy. This is simply asking for acknowledgement in the consuming product's documentation. It is a pain to keep track of, but no worse what any author and publisher has to deal with when using the works of others. I don't think acknowledgement in the docs in an unfair expectation.
My two cents.... for all it's worth.
Stph
Notice the word "only".
So its OK for the GPL to impose restrictions, but not for other licenses to?
Both the new XFree86 clause and the original BSD clause are simple vanity clauses. Fixating on these as "restrictions" sounds pretty foolish to me. Can it possibly be that the GPL is foolishly crafted to go to war with such simple requirements, which have absolutely no bearing on whether the end product is either free beer or free speech?
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.
(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!
No, because it's perfectly possible to have code under two liscencesin the same program.
The problem arises when you want to change that liscence. Actually, it's two problems:
1) The contributors must all agree to the liscence change. If they don't, you have to back out thier code, or not change the liscence. That's the fundemental protection of copyright.
2) The new liscence is incomplatable with the GPL. Thus, you can't mix GPL code with code under the new XFree86 liscence. You could with the old liscence. This a result of the wording of the two liscences.
Neither problem existed prior to the liscence change.
It's OK for any license to impose any restrictions that they want. Certain combinations of restrictions can't be mixed, but that's OK, too. These two licenses can't be mixed because of the interaction of both their restrictions.
The deal in this case is that this new XFree86 license covers one point release of one work of software, whereas the GPL covers thousands of works produced over the past couple of decades.
If, in a reverse of the situation, all of today's GPLed software had been actually released under the new XFree license, and the XFree86 project had just invented the GPL for their new 4.4 version, the outcome would be exactly the same: People would be dumping XFree86 4.4 because it was incompatible with the more commonly used license.
No, that wouldn't work. The License file is very clear and very specific. You include the acknowledgement in the end user documentation, or you include it where you include your other acknowledgements IN the software.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
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.
people who had contributed code to 4.4 would simply resubmit it to the fork, on the basis that whoever wrote the original code can resubmit it to anyone they want unless they transferred the copyright to the Xfree project.
And the moral of the story is: don't assign your copyright to anyone project that doesn't use the GPL. They can't be trusted. To the success of the fork!
Perhaps that's the workaround - include XFree86 4.3, and an installer that automatically downloads XFree86 4.4 if you want it and it compiles it. Sure, the bandwidth demands on ftp.xfree86.org would be astronomical, but...
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I'm start to think that the existence of the competition is one of the reasons for the licence changing. Maybe they want more visibility.
Ciao
----
FB
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
I think the problem is that if a third-party _adds_ documentation, they would also have to add the line. If you combined code from multiple sources, you would have to comb through each source file to find the appropriate references just to write documentation that you ship with the product. With the GPL, you only have to not mess with the existing copyright info to be okay.
Imagine you are a distributor who writes documnetation that ships as part of their distribution. With this new license, they would have to search out and find every attribution to include in their documentation.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Believed to be not compatible with the GPL.
Uh, WHY is it incompatible? I've looked over the license, and it isn't apparent to me which part is causing the heartburn. Can someone familiar with the subject post a layman's version of what changed, and what the new license either requires or permits that is at odds with the GPL?
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
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
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
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.
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?
...is because of issues like this. Idealistic licensing issues.
The FSF points out that they are incompatible so people who agree with the ideals of the FSF can easily spot licenses which meet their definition of free, and avoid those which do not.
Therefore it useless to ask if the problem is the GPL, because it is the pro-GPL people who are the ones stating that the other licenses are a problem.
Why do I keep typing pythong?
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.
Like most people in this thread, you haven't bothered to read (or understand) the "problem clause."
No, like some people, as well as the folks at Red Hat, Mandrake, Debian, etc., I have read and understood it. Distributing GPL'd source which must be linked against X is an issue. You can assert that it's not an issue all you like; the folks who ARE lawyers (e.g. Moglen, lawyers on debian-legal, etc.) disagree.
And finally, you think that a comparison between drug laws and software licenses is apt, but can't see a connection between RMS's obnoxious advertising and XFree's obnoxious advertising? Even for slashdot, I'm astounded.
Oh for heaven's sakes, it was a comparison in logical structure (i.e. that both situations involve something which is quite reasonable but legally hazardous), not a comparison of severity. If you're going to troll, do me a favor and be slightly more transparent about it, so I won't take you seriously and waste time on replying. TIA.
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.
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.
What would happen if every open source contributor licensed their code such that their name must appear in the source distribution and the documentation? That would be a nightmare to maintain - that could be tens of thousands of names. And if you left one out by mistake you could get sued by them.
Credit is nice, and many projects have websites with lists of contributors. If you contribute really good quality code I'm sure the core team would give you a letter of recommendation for your next job interview as well. However, this doesn't mean that we need legal documents to enforce all this.
The XFree86 people that made this decision have no right to expect that their code will be used by anyone. No-one is shafting them by deciding not to use their product, in the same way that no-one is shafting any company by not using their product.
If Red Hat were shipping XFree86 4.4 without crediting every contributor, then they would be stealing code.
Operating system exception clause.
In the slightly painful wording of the GPL:
"However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable."
That's why you can run GPL programs on, and ship them for, proprietary OS's. That clause is also why the commercial UNIX vendors ship most free software separately from their base OS installs. It's why the Linux and BSD vendors can ship the GPL software with the base OS installs. And it's why the Linux and BSD vendors get a world of pain from system component license changes, conflicts and issues.
Considering that OpenBSD is listed I DON'T think it's only the GPL which is the problem. Then again it may just be that Theo ran into someone even more stubornheaded then he is =)
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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.
I don't really understand this. If code is released under GPL its reuse is subject to the constraints of the GPL. How does this work if the same code is dual licensed in a different project? Couldn't a developer simply grab the 'GPL version' of the code if they don't like the second license, in effect rendering the non-GPL clauses ineffectual?
And none of this would be a problem if all software was public domain. Or if there was no copyright.
However, just saying what would 'fix' the problem doesn't actually 'fix' anything. It's like saying there would be no crime if there were no people left on Earth. Sure, it's true. But is it going to happen?
Would you like to add any other totally useless points to the discussion?