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."
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..
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
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
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)
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.
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.
except if you notice that openbsd and gentoo, both source only compiles won't include it. The problem is the licence is simlar to bsd's but requires extra credit to be placed all over the distro. Anything that links to the xfree code that is gpled or uses a bsd licence is breaking the gpl/bsd licence because of the extra stuff they need to do in order to link to the libarys. In order to make a distro with 4.4 included, you would need to rewrite every app that links to X to the X licence, else you are breaking the gpl and as a distro maintainer, you'd be responcable for the breaks.
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....
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.
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."
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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".
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
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.
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.
No, the code in question was sumbitted by its authors to XFree86 under the XFree licence. Remember, the author owns the code and he can licence it as many times as he wishes, every time with different licence.
So it doesn't make XFree86 ``gpl derivative''.
But those people who sumbitted those patches oppose changing the XFree licence on their code to something GPL incompatible. At least I've heard that Alan opposes, but I don't believe they asked all contributors if they agree to licence change.
Robert
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
Notice the word "only".
lenny@benny:~$ apt-cache show xfree86-common | grep Version
Version: 4.2.1-16
The GPL, for instance, also has a "credit where credit's due" clause, but you'd have to actually go out of your way to modify an already GPL'd program to break it:
By comparison, the XFree86 license is requiring that redistributors of XFree86 modify their documentation and/or files containing credits. That can affect you even if all you plan to do is put a copy of XFree86 on a CD for someone else and include a note saying "Here's how to install it".I'm not 100% there's no workaround that satisfies both parties, and it's notable that XFree86 is a stand-alone package, so it can safely be distributed on the same CD as, say, GNOME (though it may be necessary to include an additional X server that's unambiguously GPL compatable in addition to XFree86 4.4) without breaking the licensing for GNOME.
In general, XFree86 has made a mistake in that most authors should try to use an existing license that's a known quantity and is as compatable with as many licenses as possible. The new license appears to break this principle.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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
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
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.
It is only linking between software with these licenses that is the problem. With most of the licenses above there are ways of getting around it. The problem with the new xfree86 license is that you have gpled software such as gtk and qt that are going to be directly linking with xlib. These plus the various window managers and other applications that link with xlib and are gpled are probably 99% of the use of xlib. I havnt verified this, but Im willing to bet that only 1% of the software that currently links with xlib in debian could keep doing that with this new license. That is why all these distributions will not be shipping xfree86 4.4. They couldnt use it and it would be a waste of packaging.
"We Don't Need No Truthless Heros!" - Project 86
There is nothing more idealistic about "we want source in exchange for source" than there is about "we want money in exchange for source". Both approacches have problems, both approaches have benefits. The hassles arise when people try to take the source without the payment (the propriatary folks call it "piracy" and everyone nods and agrees that its horrible. Open Source says "licensing violation" and folks like you sneer and lecture about our fruitless idealism). Nice double standard there.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003