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.
It prevents you including GPL-licensed code in an X server derived from XFree86; that is enough reason for Debian to avoid the new release, it seems.
Interesting that the FAQ now acknowledges that the 1.1 licence does not permit redistribution under the GPL; before, the XFree86 people were insisting that in their opinion it was allowed. Unless I'm confusing two different licences here.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
No, from what I'm told, the main reason to fork is the attitude taken by some members of the XFree Core Team. As you said, its their code and they can do what they want but the forking has already happened:
Xouvert
Freedesktop
Cygwin X
Personally I don't see myself ever using XFree 4.4 and am looking forward to a complete release of fd.o. When that happens, I'll likely be moving everything I can off XFree but that's just me.
Freedesktop X server
y windows
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.
I think that what you're referring to is the Apache 2.0 license that had a clause about patents that some said conflicted with the GNU GPL but that the Apache Group said did not. 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.
And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
All alternatives suffer from a lack of (accelerated) drivers.
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.
* Several stability issues with the support for the Intel 830M, 845G, 852G, 855M and 865G integrated graphics chipsets have been fixed. Some limitation related to the driver's use of the video BIOS remain, especially for some laptops.
...
* The nv driver for NVIDIA cards has been updated as follows:
* Support added to the nv driver for the GeForce FX 5700, which didn't work with XFree86 4.3.
* The driver now does a much better job of auto-detecting which connector of dual output cards the monitor is attached to, and this should reduce or eliminate the need for manual XF86Config overrides.
* The 2D acceleration for TNT and GeForce has been completely rewritten and its performance should be substantially improved.
* TNT and GeForce cards have new XvPutImage adapter which does scales YUV bit blits.
The SiS driver has seen major updates, including:
* Support for 661/741/760 and support for 330 (Xabre).
* Merged Framebuffer mode.
* Support for DVI, and much more.
* DRI for 300 series (300/305, 540, 630, 730) is supported again.
A new driver for several VIA integrated graphics chipsets has been added.
* The mouse driver has some support on Linux and FreeBSD for auto-detecting the device to use. This makes it unnecessary to supply this information in the XF86Config file in most cases.
* XFree86 4.4 supports IPv6, based on the code contributed by Sun Microsystems, Inc. to X.Org.
* The Mesa version used for OpenGL(R) 1.3 and DRI driver support has been updated to 5.0.2.
* FreeType 2 updated to version 2.1.4.
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
I just want a gui that works nice. What features are in the new X?
:).
X is a low-level windowing system, not a desktop environment like CDE, KDE, GNOME, (or twm
It's new features are support for newer video cards, bug fixes and work arounds for broken video cards (and Dell laptop BIOSes with regards to VESA modes and 845 chipsets), IPv6 support, new version of Mesa (OpenGL 3D support), and FreeType (font library).
indeed, it is very neat. the problem is that all the drivers will need to be rewritten/ported. you can't just write wrappers around the old drivers. right now we only have fbdev/vesa stuff and some other stuff you really don't want to use right now. getting the drivers finisched right now is more important then ever.
Except that Microsoft does not use the BSD IP stack.
The FSF doesn't like the new license and begins telling people that it is incompatible with the GPL. Does that mean they are right? Does the GPL mean whatever the FSF decides it means that week?
Well, the FSF did a very good job of backing up their claim that it is incompatible with the GPL. They pointed to the exact sections where the incompatibility occurs. Most people, including a number of the major Linux distributions, seem to agree with the FSF on this interpretation.
The "this week" comment is misleading. The FSF has never changed their opinion on the correct interpretation of the GPL and has tried to make the implications of this interpretation as clear as possible from day one.
More importantly, what exactly is the FSF supposed to do about people who don't agree with their current take and make use of Apache/XFree86-4.4 anyway? Are they going to sue them?
If someone alters a GPL program such that the code is linked with code from an incompatible license, the copyright holder of that code is within their rights to order the distributor of the mixed code to stop. If that distributor does not stop, the copyright holder is within their rights to sue the distributor to make them stop.
If the FSF were the copyright holder, they probably would sue if they absolutely had to in order to ensure compliance with the GPL. The FSF does hold the copyright on many open source projects, so this is a possibility.
Do they have the money, let alone the ability convince a court that the suit isn't frivilous?
Actually, yes, the main function of the FSF is to serve as a central copyright repository for open source and trust fund for the legal defense of those copyrights.
More importantly, can they afford the ill will that would result?
Can the open source software community afford to exist in a manner in which licenses are addressed in a slapdash, "oh that's close enough" manner? Since the nature of Open Source is to coordinate input from many contributors, the exact manner in which the rights and licensing to that input is marshalled is of extreme importance. The rights framework for open source needs to be clear and solid.
Moreover, I'm not sure exactly how much ill will the FSF would garner for enforcing the requirement that if you redistribute GPLed code you follow the terms of the GPL, especially since, well, if the GPL isn't going to be complied with then why does it exist in the first place? The only ill will this would generate is among people who don't think anything should be GPLed ever, and they hate the FSF anyway, so what's the loss?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
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
> freedesktops server is just build on xfree86. same drivers.
I think you've confused freedesktop with Xouvert. Xouvert is a fork from XFree86, but they don't appear to have any of their own code yet, and people have been questioning if the project is still alive. The freedesktop Xserver is an independent implementation, based on Keith Packard's Kdrive Xserver. From the freedesktop Xserver FAQ:
Can we get rid of the X11R6 subdir? (once again, stop thinking X is a world to itself)?
Yes. This is being done for the Freedesktop.org X server. See here for more information. And about time! Another thing is that the horrible imake system is being removed (I personally would like to see it taken out behind the barn and shot). Looks like these guys are serious about dragging X into the 21st century.
The underlying framework supports drop-shadows and translucent menus, but can be used for much more:
- OpenGL will be used for drawing, so you can have very rich, yet fast, vector-graphics based applications.
- Back-buffering each window (which is what enables transparency and shadows) allows you to eliminate all sorts of flicker and lag during resizing and window moving.
- New extensions (Composite + XDamage) allow for clever window managers to do useful things like Expose-style features, screen-scrapers (for things like VNC), magnification tools, etc.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
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.
It is well known that you cannot freely mix BSD (old 4 clause or new 3 clause) licensed code with GPL code in the same code base.
No, it's not `well known', and in fact, it's not true!
The revised (`3 clause') BSD license is perfectly compatible with the GPL. Since 99.9% of all `BSD licensed' code uses the revised BSD license, there's basically no problem at all.
Of course the resulting aggregate program must have its source distributed (&c) as part of its source uses the GPL, but that's pretty obvious if you're using GPL'd source code.
[The original (`4 clause') BSD license is indeed incompatible with the GPL, but that's largely academic, as no one actually uses that anymore.]
We live, as we dream -- alone....
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?