Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

XFree86 4.4: List of Rejecting Distributors Grows

Posted by timothy on from the about-this-small-print dept.

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."

9 of 682 comments (clear)

  1. I can understand but.. by Ymiris · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!**
    1. Re:I can understand but.. by Ewan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      XFree 4.3 is not dramatically different from 4.4, and if the 4.3 fork were to gain momentum you'd find very quickly that 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.

      Ewan

  2. Every cloud has a silver lining by kinnell · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  3. Re:Forking hell? by kevin_ka · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    afaik your 100% right there. And the question isn't if someone will fork ist but when. (unless they change the license back in time)

  4. Re:What is the issue? by Ubi_NL · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The really interesting bit is that there is a lot of GPL-ed code in XFree. Chunks have been copied from the linux kernel, and people like Alan Cox submitted patches. As this code is GPL, XFree must also be GPL in order to use it, or the Xfree teasm must rewrite these parts. I understood Alan Cox opposes his contributions to be placed under the new licensing scheme.

    --

    If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
  5. Re:What is the issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually the OpenBSD people (who fight license battles more than just about any other OS/distro -- even Debian) don't think it is equivalent to a BSD license either (the original license was equivalent to the BSD licence in case anyone is wondering: XFree was never GPL'd). David Dawes thinks still thinks it is. If he believes that, I hope he will change the wording back so everyone else believes it too....

  6. Re:The Question by markbthomas · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The license only requests proper attribution in software and/or documentation like other third parties are getting.

    The license doesn't request attribution, it requires it. That is the problem. Can you see what would happen if every time I started my computer, it printed out the names of all the people and organisations that were involved in making it? It could take days to boot :)

    It's just vanity.

  7. Strange behaviour... by phrasebook · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:Isn't this the end of the story, then? by Lussarn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Alan cox can do pretty much what he wants with his own source, it is not GPL just because it is in the kernel and Xfree (It becomes more like dual licenced).

    And as the last Xfree licence was a BSD style one the Xfree team can change the licence to pretty much what they want, including an MS EULA one, the BSD licence is pretty loose.