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."

4 of 682 comments (clear)

  1. Run any GPLed X apps? by FreeUser · · Score: 1, Redundant

    So I take a look at the new license. I'm thinking "What the hell is the problem?"

    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 ... 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.

    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
  2. Re:What is the issue? by rsidd · · Score: 1, Redundant
    people like Alan Cox submitted patches. As this code is GPL, XFree must also be GPL in order to use it

    Can you point to anything Alan Cox or others submitted under the GPL? He has submitted stuff, but under the old XFree86 licence. He opposes the new licensing scheme and wants his code placed under the old XFree86 licence. There is some GPL code in there like freetype, but the old XFree licence is compatible with that; Xfree86 need not be GPL. A combined work (eg, binaries distributed by a linux distro) should be GPL, but the non-GPL parts can be redistributed under the XFree86 licence -- just as you can link GPL code into the FreeBSD kernel, and the project distributes the source to let you do that, but the binary kernels distributed by the FreeBSD project don't have any GPL bits because they don't want to distribute the kernel under the GPL. Not an issue for Linux distributors.

  3. The redhat link by phoxix · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The poster talks about Redhat rejecting XFree86 4.4. But fails to supply a link.

    Redhat's rejection

  4. Can anyone explain the uproar? by jopet · · Score: 1, Redundant

    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.