Slashdot Mirror
XFree86 4.4 Released
puriots0 writes "XFree86 version 4.4 is finally out! Grab it while it's still hot, if you don't mind the recent licensing changes... And if you don't care about the license, but the maintainers of your distribution do, this might be the only way to get it for the moment." The XFree86 people seem very eager to claim that the new license is nothing bad; see their FAQ. However, people who have reviewed it, such as RMS and Branden Robinson, think differently. It looks as if the XFree86 people have a short timespan to either rethink their license changes or be dropped from every/almost every Linux distribution in favor of a forked codebase.
So, it seems that the main reason for a fork is no longer an issue ? No-one is going to be writing a new X-Server (well, I guess some of the embedded folks might, but that's about all I can think of), and they state that there's no issues with any client programs that you link with
My position is that if you write/own the code you get to say how it's used. I don't think there's *any* argument against that, and I can see why they want to promote themselves in this world where perception is all. The issue is that all decisions have consequences - which may be why client-programs are not part of the deal
I wonder if the forking argument itself (please say that correctly
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Its not just linux, the BSDs are against these changes too. Ironicly too, since their licence used to be like this one.
found here
We'd probably go through growing pains associated with transfers to other graphical servers, but in the end the best will win.
No, in a little while they will prove that nomatter what companies/organizations do it will continue fine without them....
The great thing about free software is that you can only be in control as long as you don't piss off a critical set of developpers.
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Story says "XFree86 4.4 Released"
What's it been released from?
Don't mod me, bro'!!!!
What other alternatives are there to Xfree?
Maybe its time to get more people looking at Xserver?
found here
Here's the deal.. if the new license isn't such a big deal, why doesn't the XFree group revert ot the old one? There is something in the new license that is really important to them, so its not exactly a minor wording change. If this were a lot of trouble over nothing, they would have backed off to a license they've _been_ releasing code under for years. I'll stick with the version that people with more legal experience than me say is best. I thank RMS and the distros for watching out for me by keeping up with these licensing issues.
Sure, it seems bad while it's happening, but in the end you get a better product. Often projects get way too political and forking is a way to bypass that bureaucratic nightmare.
the GPL be a harsh mistress....
Divide and conquer...
We're fighting ourselves on this issue. Not until this licensing problem is sorted out will big companies be able to take deploying Linux based desktop machines seriously...
It's apparent that IP laws are more and more important to people who job is to write software.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
that's not cliche at all, very insightful. what downfall are you talking about? linux ix great for those who like it, it has no commercial aspirations. maybe its the downfall of commercial linux, but who the hell cares, i'll always be able to go put together a distro if i want too. there will never be a 'downfall'. the world isn't all corporate, and linux certainly isn't.
won't be able to get it at all soon..
Maybe a simpler and GPLed implementation is in order. There's got to be a bunch of tweaks for speed available for the X86 platform that would be possible in something not intended to run in safe mode all the time.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
no, this is a good move from the distro side. x11 needs to be gpl compatible. it is madness to rewrite all the progs using it. I really hope freedesktop shows there head in this round. they truly have a great potential.
The XF86 project is distributing the 4.4 code under only the new license.
Have any of the individual XF86 *contributors* come forward and said their portions of 4.4 may be used under the previous license at the user's option?
It looks as if the XFree86 people have a short timespan to either rethink their license changes or be dropped from every/almost every Linux distribution in favor of a forked codebase.
Am I the only one here who thinks it is possible that license change or not, some distributions are getting ready to dump XFree86 in ANY case, due to the other problems it has, like the general arrogance of the core developers, and the lack of a truly open development community, which is largely their doing?
Seriously, I don't think the license change is the major reason, but simply the right occasion for dumping XFree86. Even if they were to revert the license change tomorrow, I for one would still favor seeing forks like Freedesktop.org's server make it into distros, because I believe the license change is only one of MANY indications that XFree86 has far deeper problems that I'm not so sure can be fixed so easily. Just like many organizations and projects in real life, the PEOPLE behind the project are the greatest asset, and I think the XFree86 core team has failed to recognize this. Unless the core team gets a total attitude makeover, I doubt this will ever change.
Are you trying to be funny with that firefox sig.? lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/debian-devel-20 0402/msg01877.html
I'm not laughing.
I don't see linux being hurt by this, only XFree86.
In my opinion, the sooner Linux drops XF86, the better it will be for Linux.
No, it's an advantage. If MS suddenly changed the MSHTML license that said it couldn't be used by free programs what would happen? The only choice would be to get a new HTML renderer like Gecko, because XFree is open source we can take the code that is still under the free license and fork a new copy under a free license.
This is the first version of X that many of its end packagers (linux distros, bsds, etc) have explicitly rejected. What will be the motivation to pursue further development that no one is using? This group just (xFree) 86'd themselves with petty sqaubbling. Thanks for the memories but I think its goodnight Vienna for XFree86.
What happens when closed source developpers stop developping? What if they get another job?
If the company doesn't wan't to develop anymore your screwed, otherwise they would have to hire new programmers....
The free software alternative is better:
No matter what the original author does, you can always do (or have done) it yourself. And that is just asuming you are the only one that cares.
If the project is really interesting someone will eventually pick it up or replace it.
A rational person that doesn't see that is blind.
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
What other alternatives are there to Xfree?
There are not suitable alternatives for end-users on Linux and BSD on recent hardware. freedesktop.org is an experimental play-area for developers where exciting new features are currently being developed not mundane things like updated drivers for newer video cards (Radeon 9600, 3rd party 9200LE, newer Intel 845 series, etc.), not robust "production quality" software for end-users, Xouvert doesn't actual have any unique code of their own the last time I looked, and Y Window system is more an idea and a work in progress.
Changed to Icerabbit, as suggested by debian.
Can we get rid of the X11R6 subdir? (once again, stop thinking X is a world to itself)?
Just two suggestions for the post-XFree86 era.
Berlin was renamed Fresco quite a while ago, and has not changed names since.
You know where you are? You're in the $PATH, baby. You're gonna get executed!
XFree86 4.3 just got into Debian unstable. Debian won't arrive at avoiding 4.4 until eight or nine months from now.
-- Repeat with me: "There is no right to profits".
Linux will get nowhere in the consumer market for as long as any user-- anywhere-- has to be aware of the existence of the XF86Config file.
Whats new in 4.4, the site seems to be /.ed. Can a Karma whore please post come release notes.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
The XFree86 Inc. (that is their board) has shown to be willing to discuss actual issues and concerns. If you look at the first reply to RMS's message in the XFree86 Forum, it is from David Dawes of XFree86 and his willing ness to discuss concerns about the license change.
It is not clear why XFree86 has to modify their license to suit a Linux distribution, which is suppose to be a compilation of Free/Open Source Linux software, not a dictator of Open Source.
If these arm chair lawyers are so concerned about GPL, why don't they write a new X Window System from scratch, and release it for free/Free under the GPL.
You're always dependent on some developers, not necessarily the same developers as you've always had.
What happens if the developers just stop developing?
What happens if the developers just stop developing a closed-source product?
With an abandoned closed-source product, you've got nothing to do except look for an alternative, use the old version, or write one yourself from scratch.
With an abandoned open-source product, you can get new devs on your team, or the code can be forked. No open source project is truly abandoned if there is continued interest in developing it.
live(free) || die;
This isn't rhetorical! I'd really like to know!
that by posting it on slashdot, you just ruined what might have been "the only way to get it for the moment", don't you?
But if we have to f'up the server right, how about linking to the release notes?
It is KDE and Gnome that affect them, and they are both working hard to be freindly to them. Granny doesn't know about Xfree86, all she sees is the freindly K icon to launch her programs. XFree86 4.3 is already good enough, Lycoris and Lindows don't even use the latest versions (KDE 2.2 for Lycoris and KDE 3.0 for Lindows.
found here
Here are the files that were directly linked (sans the Slashdot article.)
RMS designed the GPL to be hard to work with. It seems a bit myopic to now act all surprised that it is working as designed and to try to blame everyone else for its inflexible nature.
That the GPL can't coexist with other licenses was a design goal of the GPL. It's unreasonable to be upset with deverlopers using other licenses for this fact which is beyond their control.
grep through the sources and you'll see it was incompatible before.
I don't see the problem with the new "Give us credit where you give others credit" license.
I think it is worth pointing out that back in 1998 The Open Group (now known as X.org) changed the licensing of X R6.4 to be proprietary, and only backed down when XFree86 and David Dawes explained exactly what they could with their proprietary server.
XFree86 is the reason we have a free software X server today. It is quite ironic that slashdot is now hating XFree86 because of licensing.
And not having the need for this backing is the great thing. The moment this backing dissapears for a closed source program you have no option what so ever. If that happens to an open source program than you can still use it, make legal copies of it and can even improve it.
You see software as a product, you should regard is as infrastructure. Somehow a society manages to build and support a road system.... and its not by magic.
When the original builder is gone you can still use the road, and if you don't know how to fill a hole you get somebody to do it for you. And if you are really lucky you will get some community of road users to do it collectivly (something like a government perhaps?)
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Ironicly too, since their [BSD] licence used to be like this one.
It seems that experience is a good teacher after all...
I for one couldn't give a crap about the license, I just want a gui that works nice. What features are in the new X? The site isn't responding to me, otherwise id look myself.
Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
On the other hand, we can be upset with the developers for using "open source" licenses with stupid encumberments like the advertising requirement on XFree 4.4.
It would be a good time to point out here that the reason the GPL was designed to be inflexible was to discourage people from introducing encumberments like this one.
I haven't benn following this completely, but which if any of the major distros are going to go ahead and use 4.4?
The GPL is much more encumbered than the XFree license. Who are you to say which emcumberments should be allowed and which are "stupid"?
Either you believe that programmers should be free to license their code as they see fit, or you don't. It's not Freedom if the community is going to deny the legitimacy of licenses that RMS didn't write.
Instead of freaking out, we as a community just drop 4.4 out the window, and stick with 4.3 until a viable alternative X server comes out.
As long as someone still develops drivers for 4.3, its not the end of the world. ( yes, its a major speed bump and makes the OSS world look stupid for the bickering.. but its not a show stopper )
And remember its just the XF86Free implementation that is hosed up now, not the X11 protocol..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Say everybody *has* to use XFree4.4 and the license clause is as obnoxious as possible (ie far worse than it apparently actually is). What would happen is that every single program will print on startup "Portions of this are based on work by the XFree86 Consortium" or something like that. This has zero effect on end users or Grammy. Plenty of Windows programs print pages and pages of such copyright stuff in their About box and end users really don't care.
The problem is for developers, who don't want to be requried to print this message (but will do so if there was no alternative) and some legal problems with combining this with some code (of which there are alternatives that could be used if necessary).
The best equivalent would be to ask how users of MS Word are affected by a contract dispute between Microsoft and one of their programmers. If they fired him then the resulting program might be different, but to the end user it is meaningless.
Well, RMS created the Free Software Movement, which predates the OpenSource movement, and all this other Free licenses ... So, i think that the licenses has to adapt to the GPL, not the GPL to other licenses ...; besides, if you Beleive in Free Software, there is no real reason to use a license other than the GPL.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Perhaps it's best to list the main changes or include a link to the changelog.
i wouldn't be suprised if linux never makes it to the desktop like this.
You're free to release your code with a license saying you may only use the code while doing headstands. That doesn't mean anyone else has to accept it.
And I think the "encumberances" of the GPL basically do little more than to say that you can't take someone's code and take away the freedom that you had when you redistribute it.
there's a nice article on OSnews which looks back on the whole XFree86 affair of past year ...
This post is displayed with recycled electrons
How many succesful closed sourced projects can you think of that got closed down and are now unusable?
microwindows/nanogui can be setup to be binary compatible with xlib.
These licensing problems and forks will turn out to be the downfall of Linux.
I'd call forking natural selection... and while it can be painful, I would say it makes things stronger. Projects that head out into the weeds loose mind share (developers, users, 'buzz' if you will..) and disappear. The beauty of Linux is you get to scratch your itch. Often others share the same problem, and may share a solution. Someone running the project goes off into a wild tangent, good for them. Might be a little pain as you switch to something that is more aligned to what you were after, but odds are you can.
A personal example? I let myself get lulled into the RPM package management and really felt like I got the shaft when RH dropped the 'non-enterprise' user who did not have mad cash for per machine/per year subscriptions. All the packaged distros seemed to share the same Achilles heel (in my mind). Hunkered down and went Gentoo rather than putting energy into Fedora. If ebuilds fade away, I'll look at the app-get thing...
Forking thins the hurd (-1, terrible joke)
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
I don't know about being dropped from distributions, but their FAQ has been dropped from the web :)
Karma? Hey I just call it as I see it.
Maybe now linux can get a modern desktop architecture. Hopefully XFree86 won't fork... It's time to start from scratch and look towards the future.
These guys are wanting some attention, so they whine a little and get nothing. Then they force the issue and get the wrong sort.
Seems to me, credit is given where credit is due. If they actually were doing something worth really knowing about, wouldn't they actually get it? We have been seeing little spats happen for long enough now to raise a few eyebrows. Personally, I suspect some deeper problems behind this.
We need an active X development group that does everything it can to enable *nix systems to continue to develop. We don't need these petty squabbles.
Those of us who know what X brings to the table are happy using X. Replacing it really should not be an option at this point; however, I see plenty of folks not happy with X as it is today.
This is exactly why they are not getting the attention they crave. The job is not being done well enough plain and simple.
Fork or no, this is going to continue to be a problem until a group forms that can step up to the plate and hit a few home runs. Will it be the XFree guys or somebody else?
Whoever gets X development moving as it needs to will get all the attention they need. Stupid license clauses won't cut it.
Blogging because I can...
The discussion right here on the page you are reading clearly demonstrates that in the minds of many people XFree86 should not have this freedom. I see more people who are distressed because XFree has chosen a license which is not the GPL than I see people who are distressed over the actual terms of the Xfree86 license. It seems that that choosing a non-GPL license is an untenable and damnable offense in the eyes of some who are now calling for the prejudicial abandonment of XFree86 for strictly dogmatic reasons.
It's one thing to not accept a license because headstands are uncomfortable. It's an entirely different and worse thing to denounce a developer for choosing a license that isn't the one you favor. I see far more of the latter going on here than I see the former.
Finally, The GPL does demand more than your vague perception of it appears to encompass. However, that's not really relevant to my point.
Yeah, we all know about freedesktop.org, Ywindows, etc. But name an alternative that works now. I'm pretty fond of my GNOME DE and I won't be bailing out on X until something else actually works.
Fortunately for me, my Radeon 8500 runs just fine with xfree-4.3.0 and I have no plans to go shopping for the latest "AlphaGammatron v2.990zeta" video card. Hopefully a suitable replacement will come along, but it isn't here yet.
And I think the "encumberances" of the GPL basically do little more than to say that you can't take someone's code and take away the freedom that you had when you redistribute it.
Sure it does. It says you cannot even link to the GPL code without GPL'ing your code. You don't have to modify a single line of the GPL source code and *poof* you either GPL your source or you unlink. That sounds pretty encumbered to me.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Wrong. You don't have to GPL your code if your licence is GPL compatible. Thats Why LGPL and other licences can co-exist with the gpl.
found here
How many succesfull open source projects that are now unusable can you name?
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
It's not just FSF that has problems with this...
1 07 696705911864&w=2
OpenBSD project isn't including code with the new license either:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=
You, my good man, are a troll.
No need to get defensive, I just think it's a bit of a myth that closed source project are any more/less likely than open source projects to whither and die if they are succesful. It is in a the company's interests to continue to improve a succesful project, to continue the company's success, and for an open source project, the more succesful it is the more likely people will be willing to contribute to it.
Indeed, an unsuccesful closed source project will no longer receive support, because, well, it was unsuccesful for whatever reason. And in the unsuccesful open source path, the project will probably die due to the lack of interest in it.
In both cases market forces will determine the lifetime of the project.
For the 4.4 release, only:
* Anti-aliased font installation is supported through a graphical user interface
* nVidia and ATI video drivers have been poured in, native
* All Microsoft code found in the wild has been incorporated (must accept MS EULA during each boot process)
Did I leave anything out?
I noticed when Googling around about Dawes that (besides the fact that apparently he lives rather close to me) he is running a business based on X, offering stuff like automagic configuration (at least some of which has made it into the X CVS). Could dropping the latest X from the major Linux distros leave Dawes as the only game in town for enterprises seeking the most enterprise-ready solution? And he wouldn't have to take responsibility for pulling it from his competition....
The GPL offers exactly the minimal set of restrictions that are absolutely necessary in order to ensure others do not try to later add restrictions to redistributions of the code. Because the sole reason for these restrictions is to prevent further restriction, they are viewed as justified, as a necessary evil.
The idea is that those who promote the GPL over other open source licenses believe that this is the only reasonable justification for encumberment.
Either you believe that programmers should be free to license their code as they see fit, or you don't.
This is a straw man. XF86's detractors are not saying that the XF86 project doesn't have the right to license their code as they see fit. XF86's detractors are saying that XF86 must license their code in certain ways if they wish for other people to actually use it.
Also, some of them are upset because they consider it wrong that XF86 waited until XF86 was accepted and used by everyone, then began adding encumberments many find unacceptable. This smacks of bait-and-switch and being upset about this is totally reasonable. Of course, it isn't the end of the world because the option of forking from XF86 4.3 is there, but it should be noted that that option is indeed exactly what the detractors are doing.
There are two X servers on freedesktop.org. One is Keiths experimental server the other is the X.org tree which is XFree 4.4 without the license change bits and with other stuff, and most of the people Dave Dawes fired working on it.
The x.org server is very much ready for prime time
That's what Linux needs! Proper support for embroidering! I hope the fd.o people get around to this soon. Linux really has opportunities in the market for embroidered devices...
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
As to the rest, I've responded to your points elsewhere in this thread.
4.4rc2 is still old license
ordinarily this kind of stuff gets done by the driver manufacturer's software or the OS vender. If you had to edit the Windows equivalent of XF86Config it'd be just as much a pain in the ass (probably more, it'd be registry hacks). XFree86 is still used mainly in places where the user is expected to find editing a config file no big deal. Check Mandrake Linux, SuSe or Lindows if you want to see nice, end-user friendly frontends. The solution isn't to dumb things down, but to write intelligent tools that make things simple.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
many people feel that it's stupid for xfree86 people to do this because for practicalitys sake most people can't start using it(4.4) 'right'. they knew it too, they knew that it would be an issue and would hinder it's adaptation, yet they chose to ignore that fact. it's little things like that why the distros are looking elsewhere for alternatives(and are likely to jump boat as soon as they can).
of course if they just want to keep(turn it back into) it as an academic research project then by all means changing the license this way is a great move(nah, even for that there would be better ways).
what you're supposed to do when you see somebody doing something that you think is very stupid? tell them that "YOU RULE!!! GO GO GO GO!!!"? or make a blunt statement that their actions don't seem to make sense?
gpl demands more, that is true, but more projects use it (and have chosen it) and gpl compatibility seems to be quite an issue!
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
You're free to write code with any license you want, and you're equally free to let code with a license you don't like languish in disuse and obscurity. That's freedom.
Don't drop the soap, Tommy!
As with as Keith's work there is the x.org reference server tree on freedesktop.org, which is basically 4.4 without the contaminated bits. I suspect the fact this tree was close to ready for full release has something to do with the sudden appearance of XFree 4.4, but maybe I'm just cynical.
"Careful with that X eugene"
As mentioned in numberous other places, the reason why an "contributor/advertisement clause" is incompatible with the GPL because it sets a restriction on the software. No matter how innocent or benign one thinks it is putting restrictions like this on software blows. It isn't practical or very ethtical. It isn't good to be free except in the case where you forgot to have our names plaster in the right spots.
I am all for giving credit where credit is due. However that place and time is not at the license level.
If I write a GPLed library, I DON'T WANT some selfish asshole of a developer linking against it to develop his proprietary application.
If said developer wants exclusive proprietary control over his code... he can write his code his f*king self.
86ed
XFree is dying, maybe.
;)
Most say that it sucks. I say it's not perfect but check this website : http://www.lynucs.org/
and you'll see that X can really make your desktop very eye-candy. (well, perhaps you already knew
Don't blame XFree too much.. we're pretty all using it, even it may be the time to move on.
There is a difference... For a closed source project there is a much higher critical number. Namely the point between profit and loss. You need a certain critical mass to support a closed source program and its backing company.
Even if you are the only one using a open source program you can continue to use and improve it as long as you like. The critical mass here is one.
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
I've been reading through the slashdot stories/posts, and I cannot seem to find anywhere what the problem with the new license is. The fact that xfree86.org is down doesn't help either.
Could someome tell me:
a) What is the license change?
b) Why it is so harmful?
-=Lothsahn=-
which predates the OpenSource movement, and all this other Free licenses
It predated the name "Open Source", but it did not predate all other Free and Open Source licenses. The BSD and MIT licenses are two that predated the GPL. In addition, the idea of Free Software predates the GPL by at least two decades, though it was RMS who first insisted on the capitalization of the term.
if you Beleive in Free Software, there is no real reason to use a license other than the GPL.
If you believe in Democracy, there is no real reason to vote for any but the Democrat Party candidate! Now be a good citizen and vote like I tell you to vote...
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
over his code... he can write his code his f*king self.
He does write *his* code himself, he just uses yours as well. If you didn't want it used, you wouldn't have released it as OSS would you?
I think the GPL would be fine if it said that the GPL code you use must be redistributed, and open, but that your code that *you* write can be licensed anyway *you* want it.
Its not free source code if you demand payment *in any form* for it. That's why its not Free as in beer. And I think it should be - if I write free code, I want it to be like a gift to others.
Fair enough, my argument was reliant on the fact that there would be a number of people who would be left in the lurch, as it were, if the project were to die(hence the emphasis on succesful). I felt this was a fair relection of the intention of a piece of closed source software(i.e to sell as many copies as they can), if they are not doing it for this reason, they I see no point in the project being released as closed source.
Dbase III Oracle 7 MS DOS Office 97 Lotus 123 Windows NT Windows 95 MS DOS 6.22
Just compiled it from CVS with my awesome host.def. Fuck all licensing issues.
Is it true? I know about Theo being picky, but FreeBSD and NetBSD folks seem to be indifferent..
I'm not sure, but I think the Apache 2.0 license has been revised further to make it more clear that it is GNU GPL compatible
Unfortunately not. Instead of fixing the problem, the Apache group made a public statement to say that the incompatibility doesn't exist. - The problem arose from the press release of the Apache License-2.0, in which they gave "GPL compatibility" as a justification for the new license. Note that if you combine a GPL'd and an APL'd work, it's the GPL'd works license that is infringed, so the decision isn't up to the Apache group. The Apache guys might need a good clothes line.
From FSF's license list: The Apache Software License, version 2.0: This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL. The Apache Software License is incompatible with the GPL because it has a specific requirement that is not in the GPL: it has certain patent termination cases that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
I'll exclude bigger projects to paint you clearer picture...
Most of the companies that produce Accouting software are large enough to get in one bigger car. Guess what,... if that car hits the truck....
well,... you as customer are screwed.
While on the other side, most of OSS softwares are produced with numer of developers that you can stuck on a bike. But if that bike hits a truck and you really depend on that software,... who stops you to hire some programmers to continue work on a paid basis?
company that made my previous accounting software went bankrupt and I left with nothing. btw.
Kylix I bought??? Borland stopped working on it.
RAV antivirus for Linux server I licenced for one year? M$ bought RAV and discontinued Linux products (That was 3 months after signing agreement for one year).
If you want more examples, just ask
And you say I'm idiot to trust open source, face it and look at the mirror, you'll find idiot in there
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Now, which one of these is unusable at present?
Except for Win95 of course.
And indeed how long has it been since the Linux Kernel 1.9 has been supported/updated?
One program is a mass-emailing program which we use to send newsletters to our subscribers(yes, real paying subscribers, not spam :), which we bought because it had support for the databases we use. The other was a mass-faxing software/service, and the last was a subscription... thingymabob(never came in contact with that one myself, and it was 6 years ago).
All three of the above mentioned products were discontinued and caused us much trouble, one even being a program which expired after a certain period.
I am a big free software advocate, but I don't have to do any advocacy at my work, other than pointing out software that meets our needs. I have mostly been able to let the advantages of free software speak for itself.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Their main feature is "Translucent windows" fer chrissakes. Typical adolescent linux fanboys, move along, nothing to see there.
Yeah, probably right (looking from the company side), but you did forget two things (on users side).
1. How much was the cost of OSS dissapointment and how much closed.
2. What were the ways out of the mess when project died.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
*Cough* Ahem... What I mean is, this has happened before and it will happen again and is nothing to be too concerned about. There can be brief periods of pain, but it's generally not too bad.
Cheers.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
The furor over the license is generated by commercial interests and little else. Look at where the criticism of the license comes from. Is it a vendor that has sold repackaged XFree86 as a product for years and stands to benefit from calling it their own product?
Once you filter out FUD from vendors, what issues are left?
Even RMS claimed that the new "license requirement qualifies as free software".
RMS also claims that the new licensing policy will "eliminate the (GPL) incompatibility with applications".
It seems pretty clear once you filter out the noise....
It appears to be pretty recent, and not yet advertised, but freedesktop.org has forked Xfree86 from 4.4 RC2. Note: this independent from their own experimental X server to which everybody is referring (but which is not really ready for consumption yet). If XFree86 doesn't revert to the old license, distributors are likely going to package the freedesktop fork. It remains to be seen if the major XFree86 developers will follow.
1. Depends on how much the cost of the new solution was, for each situation. Remembering that the initial cost of start up using the project has already been taken into account.
2. Again, it will be the same in both situations. It may be easier for users if they choose a closed source path, as vendors may be able to sell/ make as part of the deal a migration solution(remembering it will be in their interests to do so), especially if the previous solution was reasonably well known.
Re-introducing the Microsoft changes to the BSD code-bases would be distribution, and the BSD doesn't require derivative apps to allow free redistribution. Hence the whole difference between BSD and GPL licenses.
The EULA has nothing to do with it.
Sorry, no karma here:)
1. Depends on how much the cost of the new solution was, for each situation. Remembering that the initial cost of start up using the project has already been taken into account.
????? WTF are you talking about, where is the cost of starting phproject which I use now instead of a proprietary solution? mysql? openoffice??? freepascal and lazarus???, anjuta and gcc???, Gimp???, Evolution???, Epiphany???. These are all tools that my company depends on
2. Had already too many bad deals, to even start to believe you. I believe in proprietary if company stakes the source, (as MySQL, as Advanced Server, then money is not a problem)
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
Forking thins the hurd (-1, terrible joke)
Forking is natural. Without it there wouldn't be a hurd needing thinning in the first place. (-2, *really* terrible joke)
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Whether the GPL says you have to keep copyright notices or not, stripping copyright notices without permission is already illegal under copyright law. So is fraud.
Claiming someone elses work as your own can constitute fraud. Stripping copyright notices can get you in trouble with the authors as well.
Note that I'm talking about the source here, not the output of the program itself. If the output used to have a banner that said who made it.. that does not need to be kept.
Remember, the GPL only licenses you to do some stuff.. it does not remove copyright law.
In fact, being forced to keep a list of contributors in the source of copywritten code should be just FINE, and in fact, encouraged, by everyone...
In other words, the GPL is heavily encumbered. That was my point.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
It is not clear why XFree86 has to modify their license to suit a Linux distribution, which is suppose to be a compilation of Free/Open Source Linux software, not a dictator of Open Source.
Of course they don't `have to' do anything. But whether they (or you) like it or not, Debian and other distros have a fair amount of influence, and if they all move to some other system, the XFree86 project could end up being marginalized, and I doubt they want that.
If these arm chair lawyers are so concerned about GPL, why don't they write a new X Window System from scratch, and release it for free/Free under the GPL.
Because they don't have to -- they can just take XFree86 4.3.xxx and fork it. Easy!
[and thus the beauty of free software is illustrated.]
We live, as we dream -- alone....
That is rather nebulous (what is the exact definition of GPL compatible?), but it points out that the GPL is very much encumbered, although it does try and strawman the argument.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Enlightenment (www.enlightenment.org) has been around for quite a few years now, and can look like a lot of different things - but if you give it 64 virtual desktops with a different background image on each and turn on all special effects it will run very slowly. If you use a sane configuration it will run OK on a pentium 90 with 32MB.
There are also many others which have been developed since then - there is more software available than what comes with your distribution.
One final thing - gnome is not X, it is a whole suite of different programs, which is why it takes so long to start up. The whole idea of there being one program that does everything is just an artifact of the Microsoft court case - your web browser is NOT part of your operating system, and the gnome panel is NOT part of X, they are seperate programs.
Yup. I predict forking.
We actually saw this years ago when ssh.com made their SSH 1.2.x release no longer open source. The OpenSSH developers forked from there, and have created a far superior product.
I'm just afraid of effort wasted, for example producing device drivers that can't be ported to the other system. We get the same fussing with Gnome/KDE widgets now, and it's silly.
Isn't MS laughing over this whole affair?
Graphics card makers refuse to release info allowing Open Source drivers to take full advantage of their hardware; heck, people gush over the major proctalgia of NVidia's driver that you get to recompile every time there's a kernel upgrade.
Now XFree86 decides to change its license in a way that is incompatible with GPL, so that Linux distributions refuse to use XFree86 4.4. The free alternatives (freedesktop.org, Y, etc.) need rewritten drivers. Does anyone think the hardware vendors will write multiple drivers when it's hard enough to pry one out of them?
PCI Express is on its way, and the claim is that it will kill AGP. How long will one be able to survive with a free X, or XFree86 4.3? (Not a rhetorical question; I don't know enough about the hardware to say, and really would like an answer.)
> It seems that that choosing a non-GPL license is an untenable and damnable offense
It seems that basic reading comprehension skills are unusually hard to acquire, too. The issue here is that a non-GPL-compatible license is being used, not that the entire license is not the GPL.
...that BSD and the new XFree86 licence require you to acknowledge the authorship and GPL forbids you from adding restrictions not in the GPL - including an advertising clause.
I would be happy to see the licence backed out and the major distributors voluntarily add a splash screen giving major credits and referring the viewer to a website with extended acknowledgements.
I would be just as happy to see a GPL "A" variant arise which was GPL plus advertising clause. This would allow you to GPLA-license BSD code which you are modifying, effectivly getting the GPL's sterner protection but without treading on the intentions and rights of the original authors.
Of course, if you're working from a no-advertising BSD licence, these problems evapourate. Personally, I'd like to see XFree86 with a splash screen since it'd give you something to read while KDE (or whatever) starts, and it'd overwrite the splash screen from NVidia (or other manufacturer) who are not at all shy about claiming credit for stuff.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The GPL should be broken to allow for integration.
Lets brake matters of principle to allow for a bit of convenience. And to get a pat in the back from MS?
Yeah, way to act, honest to goodness, it is heart warming that there are people out there ready to compromise principles no matter what.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Open Source will not work.
Yet it built the Internet and has kept it running for 4 decades. Brings a whole new meaning to "not working".
OK. Enough talking about licence changes. How about talking about the new release and what new exciting things it provides? I browsed through the entire release notes and could not find a single thing that will get me excited about trying out the new release. Nothing like, xrandr in 4.3 release or sub-pixel anti-aliased fonts in 4.1/4.2. In fact, nothing other than bug fixes that would benefit X for desktop user. I guess Keith Packard's absense is being felt in this release notes. Am I missing something that you noticed?
...is that you're never left wondering where you stand with him. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
If you've every installed nVidia drivers for XWindows, you have to edit XF86Config. Ever tried upgrading the kernel in Fedora core 2? X won't work anymore after that, because you have to edit XF86Config to change the mouse to /dev/input/mice (or something like that). I don't know about you, but the REAL distributions aren't entirely caught up with making the whole config process transparent... albeit, they are getting better.
Simple enough for you?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...and a few other non-standard configs like monitor-plus-TV.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...(I kid you not, that's it's full name) has two scroll-wheels plus four other buttons. Coming soon, Ctrl, Shift and Alt buttons and the Dvorak Mouse.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The XFree86 team is completely free to change their license as they see fit and distro packagers have the same freedom to reject software based on a license they don't like. Both sides are right.
G/D/R
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...is there one for the delta between 4.4rc2 and 4.4.0? It's probably a much shorter list, and IIRC at least the VIA, SiS, nv drivers, FreeType2 and Mesa stuff can't fall under the new licence.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Fedora, Mandrake, OpenBSD and others have also "no thanksed" the new licence.
XFree86 has been willing to talk, but not (quoth Theo deRaadt) to "use the same words" as every other advertising-clause BSD licence. Talk the talk, yes, but walking the walk hasn't happened much.
I would personally be happy to add a splash screen or whatever, but not to be required to so do.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...at least 99% of known squabbles. (-:
I find it much more productive to start from the premise that I'm wrong, even if it goes squarely against my nature.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...there were no more hypothetical questions?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Did you read the most recent ASF position on this? The matter is due to a misunderstanding how patents work under the ASL versus how they work under the GPL. The matter will probably not be completely resolved until there is a better understanding of software patents and/or a court case involving patents and these open source license.
One important point: GPL-compatibility was not the only "justification for the new license" by a long shot. That was one of many goals, but not the main point of the license.
So, there has been progress on this issue, but it's not as clear cut as you make it out.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
"You see software as a product, you should regard is as infrastructure. Somehow a society manages to build and support a road system.... and its not by magic. When the original builder is gone you can still use the road, and if you don't know how to fill a hole you get somebody to do it for you. And if you are really lucky you will get some community of road users to do it collectivly (something like a government perhaps?)"
Great, now we'll have lame software once the govt is in charge, just like a lame power grid and road system.
" There is a difference... For a closed source project there is a much higher critical number. Namely the point between profit and loss. You need a certain critical mass to support a closed source program and its backing company.
Even if you are the only one using a open source program you can continue to use and improve it as long as you like. The critical mass here is one.
Jeroen"
I think you're not understanding the economics correctly. A company can write software for only one customer, and keep doing it as long as the customer is willing to pay. So you can have a critical mass of one here. The upside of closed source is that you don't have to hire and manage people to write the code yourself, or hope someone else will do it and get it for free. You can just pay someone to do it, and if you're the only client, you can even negoitate to get the source yourself.
"It looks as if the XFree86 people have a short timespan to either rethink their license changes or be dropped from every/almost every Linux distribution in favor of a forked codebase." So you're going to fork X from an ealier version bvcause you don't want to be forced to put the author's names in the documentation? Sounds like GPL is a little inflexible, and maybe it should be changed. In general the GPL is a lot more restritive than the X license anyway.
That statement rings so true, but it appears as though the facist moderators are trying to silence your thoughts.
Keith and other motivated devs couldn't get anything into X in the first place, that is why they left.
And THAT is why there is nothing big in this release.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
Well, there seems to be one still out here.
I believe the parent post has a point. An open-source project can be much harder-hit by a backing issue.
However, there is a critical point the parent post is missing. In open-source software, the backing comes from the community itself. As long as there are willing users who support community, there will be backing.
Often, even a free-software project will receive commercial products. Let's face it--Apache, OpenOffice.org, and many more (including previously Mozilla) have great corporate support. If a project is popular enough, someone will come along with suits and the dough.
And here's the best thing: if an open-source project loses its backing (its users), why should anyone care?
Oh no, an open-source project to build drivers for bluetooth toasters running on the Gamecube OS has failed... (and if you're that desperate for drivers, you can always look for help on SF.net...)
as Linux desktop adoption has surpassed Apple's
Ahahaha...you're referring to that debunked Slashdot article, aren't you?
Even if Linux DID surpass OS X, it's doing extremely poorly considering OS X kicks Linux's ass in the apps department.
Am I missing something that you noticed?
Well, a lot of us have been waiting for that new VIA chipset driver. It's for an integrated video chip which is in a lot of those mini-PCs and also some desktops and laptops. Unfortunately, only a minimal version of the code for XFree86 4.3 exists (basic accelerated 2D, but lacking everything else -- see here).
In other words, we shouldn't fix what was broken in the first place because people happened to adapt to the flaw to begin with?
Sounds like Windows and its backwards-compatibility.
Two reasons why the GPL shouldn't be changed:
* One: the GPL covers *far*, *far* more software than XFree86. The XFree86 codebase, large as it is perhaps a hundredth of a percent of the GPLed software out there.
* Two: This is not about the license so much as political crap about XFree86. Some people have wanted to fork for a while and are just looking for a reason.
Frankly, I think XFree86 is a lousy thing to fork, because it's the sort of software that's a bitch to maintain, but if KP is up to it, freedesktop.org may be worthwhile. He certainly has the backing of a lot of people, and RH's been making moves towards switching to freedesktop.org for a while.
May we never see th
You're fired.
Bill
Alan,
I dunno how much you dabble with the related code, but how likely is a fork of X going to be to cause issues with the fact that X interfaces with kernel modules...say, freedesktop.org wants to go one way, and XFree86 wants to go another...which supporting code goes in the kernel, or is that a non-issue? I know that it's already caused fun for the Red Hat packagers, who never really expected to have to support multiple XFree86-libs-style packages...
May we never see th
Note the post above says "NT 3.51 and later".
BSD code was used, and is now gone.
BTW, Linux Net2 is not based on BSD Net2.
The KAQ9 stack is another independant one.
The parent post (by me, Anonymous Coward), is factual - it quotes it's parent post, refutes the validity of the claim, and refutes the legitimacy of the rest of the parent post on the grounds that it's grounds were shakey.
I realize that this *sounds* funny, however this is apparently a serious problem.
There is reverse engineering work to do first.
May we never see th
The problem is that the GPL tries really hard to be viral whenever you try to mix GPL and other code. When actually mixing source from differently licenced sources that makes sense - all licences need to be fulfilled on the same code. Its either possible or not.
But GPL goes a step further and tries to encumber code that's simply linked. Over the years the FSF have had to back down on some of the more outrageous results of this policy, a policy that resembles Microsofts 'embrace & extend' theft attempts. Its not that long since linking against libstdc++ encumbered C++ programs - simply using the C++ standard library infected your code!
The Apache licence does not need fixing. The GPL needs fixing to be more tolerant of other licences, its a licence who's purpose is the propagation of the GPL not the propagation of F/OSS. Being 'GPL compatible' is a test of whether your source can be assimilated, nothing more. Its a 'one size fits all' philosophy with no room for dissent.
Obviously the smart thing to do here would be to fork the project from its most recent viable-licensed release, re-license it under the GPL ( something permitted by the BSD license, presumably the MIT-XConsortium license permits something similar ), and build from that as a starting point.
You might recall when the commercial SSH folks started to add OSS-incompatible clauses to their license, the project was forked and became OpenSSH under the strict provisions of the vanilla BSD license. Now, OpenSSH has buried the commercial SSH variant, and is shipped with many of the modern *nix variants.
There is no reason why the same cant happen with XFree86 - the project will be probably be stronger after the fork than it has ever been, going by historical precedent.
...and it's not like an application's splash screen, which comes up every time you launch the app. Saturation advertising. Ptui! Because you can't say it well, you have to say it constantly before anyone accepts it.
Not that I don't see where you're coming from. I'm currently diddling around with WINE, and I've run across one app (a game) whose splash-screen locks up hard under WINE but if you bypass it (turn the call into NOPs) it works without trauma, and another whose splash-screen works but the hotspot isn't over the drawn button and the mouse cursor doesn't change so it's very hit-and-miss to get the thing started.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
This post contains nothing save a link. What the fuck? This isn't interesting!
Why on earth from scratch? The XFree86 code was meant to be free. Why not just take the last free version and GPL that?
Look out!
Which one is farther along and better in structure? Has anyone compared the code and featureset?
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
Can someone please explain how David Dawes can still be in charge of the project after this past year of turmoil?
He didn't start the project and it is an important community project for 90% of the users of just about any "alternative" OS.
Why hasn't someone else replaced him?
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
Why in the "F" word are people putting time and effort into supporting SCO rubbish?!?! The entire world should do everything it can to make its products INCOMPATIBLE with their stuff. Let every IT department in the world know that they should dump whatever SCO stuff they have in favor of other products, or they'll end up with outdated and incompatible stuff!
I think this is ncurses big chance for a come back. Everyone looking for XFree86 alternative, look no further!
I saw this in the release notes.
Pseudo-intelligent comment:
Interesting. My impression of the GNU/*BSDs were that they were an exercise to prove GNU software was more important than Linux. As such GPL licensing issues are critical. I'm surprised they'll accept 4.4 because of licensing issues.
Flammable comment:
I'm sure all 6 of the general users that run KFreeBSD will be very happy.
I like the new version. They added support for my radeon card that I have been frustrated with for the last month. If you have driver troubles with laptop radeon cards I suggest you give it a try.
"OpenGL will be used for drawing, so you can have very rich, yet fast, vector-graphics based applications.
"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the vectors in a GPU, oriented more toward meshes (closed forms), than say open forms, and the manipulation of those forms (e.g. Flags waving which is a textured rectangular mesh undulating).
Also in a vector based WM there's still the issue of display lists and context switching.
GPU's are gaming orientated, and that makes them less than ideal for a 2D UI.
Huh? Why? Last I checked XFree86 4.4 was in precisely 0 Linux distributions. Big companies (except maybe software companies) are completely unaware of this "licensing problem", and will continue to be ignorant.
The fact that you have to supply the 3 paragraphs somewhere on your distribution CD is a problem now?
Am I the only one to think that slashdot is turning into a bit of a joke lately?
NO, staying with the defunct closed door model of the X11 core team would have been to downfall of Linux.
"I am a patient boy. I wait I wait I wait. My time is water down the drain..." Fugazi
You should really keep up with your mail. I retired 4 years ago. So fuck off.
Kisses,
Ann
Unfortunately, most of us don't have that luxury.
We have business customers and licensing issues ARE relevant. As is support from the distribution vendor, etc. Voiding their 'approved list' doesn't get you assistance from them very quickly.
True at home on your own it wont matter a lot.. but the rest of us do have to worry about it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
...I'd only ever see it once anyway. As it is, I'll never buy another NVidia card again if I can help it. Reliable NVidia drivers are a highly ephemeral thing.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
1. Create 2 seperate
2. ?????
3. karma!
Looks like it ain't working all to well
Well, that depends on what license you use for the combined work. The GPL requires you to use the GPL, so if you do that, there's nothing the publisher of the GPL'd work could complain about. What might be infringed however is the Apache License: iff the GPL does not fulfill all of the terms of the Apache License, then by publishing the combined work under the GPL, you have not fulfilled all of the Apache License's terms, which is obviously illegal.
Also see on of my earlier posts on the same issue.
Disclaimer: IANAL etc.
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
SuSE 9.0 had no problem autodetecting my dual monitors and setting up X for them.
The more the merrier.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
We can always hope that some genius will find a way to work that into GPLv3, but the legal gymnastics to do that safely are beyond me.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
how long has it been since the Linux Kernel 1.9 has been supported/updated?
Well, since 1.9 was a develpment version, the answer is that it's still being maintained, supported, and updated. 2.0.40 was released a couple of weeks ago.