XFree86 4.4 Released

From the FAQ by Space+cowboy · 2004-02-29 07:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

What about GPL-compatibility?

The 1.1 license is not GPL-compatible. To avoid new issues with application programs that may be licensed under the GPL, the 1.1 licence is not being applied to client side libraries.

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 ... No problem for most of us then, unless it's for political reasons.

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 seriously doubt that XFree86 *want* a code fork, and I think that freedesktop.org will give them a serious run for their money if the fork goes ahead.

I wonder if the forking argument itself (please say that correctly :-) has gathered sufficient momentum to cause the predicted split though - that would be a pity if so. For all that KDE and Gnome are competing desktops, and they have both co-evolved to their benefit over time, I think two competing windowing-system standards might have a harder time co-evolving... If they didn't, you'd have to wonder why there were 2 in the first place!

Simon.

--
Physicists get Hadrons!

Re:From the FAQ by Nuclear+Elephant · 2004-02-29 08:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

No-one is going to be writing a new X-Server

On the contrary, FreeDesktop.org is writing one, and it's A. much more promising (supports some neat things too like drop shadows and translucent menus), and B. based on the original XFree86 libraries.
Re:From the FAQ by Ianoo · 2004-02-29 08:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

Xouvert is dead. If you don't believe me check their mailing lists.
Re:From the FAQ by pe1rxq · 2004-02-29 08:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

They should stop complaining about it.....
I find it ironic that they choose a license that specificly allows relicensing and brag about its abilities and at the same time complain when somebody actually does it.....

BTW since microsoft used the BSD license ip stack doesn't that make their EULA just as viral by this logic?

Jeroen

--
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Re:From the FAQ by williamhooper · 2004-02-29 08:25 · Score: 1, Interesting

No-one is going to be writing a new X-Server...

Three letters... VNC.
Re:From the FAQ by Guspaz · 2004-02-29 09:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

Yep, the resolver link is pretty obvious just by the file structure used alone;

c:\winnt\system32\drivers\etc\hosts

And under *nix:

/etc/hosts

Gee, a bit of a similarity there, you think?
Re:From the FAQ by Nuclear+Elephant · 2004-02-29 09:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

If Linux is going to even have a chance at breaking through to the desktop world, it has to stop looking like crap. With a little customization, and FreeDesktop, I was able to make my desktop look like this: http://www.nuclearelephant.com/images/screenshot.j pg which could compete with a crappintosh any day...but little features and ATTENTION TO DETAIL (something that's missing in Linux) is one of the big reasons the average non-tech individual's going to want to use it. I'd love to see hover expansion and other features too....while I agree stability and functionality is more important, an aesthetically pleasing interface is critical to desktop assimilation.
Re:From the FAQ by HaraldNH · 2004-02-29 09:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

The reason to fork is basically something that has turned into a pissing contest, with attitudes on all sides. It will either blow over, or it will happen. If it does, the loosers will be the Open Source community and the users (us).
The basic problem with forking X, is that it is such a huge and rather un-structured code base. Which means that we are probably talking about a few dozens of people who are able to maintain and develop the stuff. A few of these are in the UNIX-companies around, a couple are at fd.o, and by far the largest group is at XFree86. And I've not seen these people talking about defecting to some other project.
Re:From the FAQ by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-29 09:59 · Score: 1, Interesting

I agree. No one will tell you how to release your code. But the new licence can potentially put a hole in the GPL. Linux people don't want that, so yeah, expect people to start dropping it. An alternative x-server has been in development for several years (freedesktop.org), and I would expect distributions to start switching in a year or so. Think of this as a rock in the middle of a fast flowing river. The water will find a way around it. Once the water has started going the other way, there's no turning back.
Re:From the FAQ by Guido+von+Guido · 2004-02-29 12:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think this "Windows 2000 TCP stack based on BSD's" thing is a bit of an urban legend. Clearly they used parts of it in various spots, but if they had based it on BSD's it would obviously work much better...

Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-29 07:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

I can't wait for the major distributions to drop xfree86 and for there to be a replacement for it. Xfree has been great while it lasted, but it's very crufty and a replacement would be welcome.

We'd probably go through growing pains associated with transfers to other graphical servers, but in the end the best will win.

What other alternatives? by brainkiller · 2004-02-29 07:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

What other alternatives are there to Xfree?

Re:What other alternatives? by BiggerIsBetter · 2004-02-29 09:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've found Xi Graphics to have a very good X Server. Only real problem is that it doesn't handle Nvidia cards. It's very fast too.

--
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.

Xserver by MooKore+2004 · 2004-02-29 07:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

Maybe its time to get more people looking at Xserver?

--
found here

Re:Xserver by Nuclear+Elephant · 2004-02-29 08:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'd switch to FDO if they would write some GLX extensions and add a few more user interface features. As of now it looks awesome, is architected well, but it's a tad slow and useless without GLX. (I'm using the ATI version)

It's time for a redesign, anyway. by Sheetrock · 2004-02-29 07:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

The average person is greatly confused by the myriad issues involved with X, such as fonts, the third mouse wheel, TV-Out, printing, and the jillion interfaces available via desktop shells (for which there is no analogue in the Windows world).

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.

Question by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-29 07:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

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?

Oh REALLY?!?!? by ZuperDee · 2004-02-29 07:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

And XFree86 Inc. has shown to be willing to talk by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-29 08:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Hurting DESKTOP linux? by xanthines-R-yummy · 2004-02-29 08:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

This may not hurt "real" linux users, but what about granny who's just getting into linux? How will the new liscensing issues affect distros like Lindows and Lycoris whose main target demographics are noobs and windows converts?

This isn't rhetorical! I'd really like to know!

This has no effect on Granny by spitzak · 2004-02-29 08:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Re:So they stick to the new license... by jellomizer · 2004-02-29 08:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well there are problems with sticking to the old license is because it didn't clearly explain how the authors wanted people to use their software. RMS is just a Free Software extremist, although you should thank him for his contributions to the Free Software community, you cant think of him as some master of right and wrong, good and evil, and worthy and unworthy. From all I heard and read about him he seems to be a very polarized person where what is believes is right is the only truth while anyone who disagrees with his is evil. Sure he is a smart man but the smartest man can be wrong. RMS often fails to realize the most people need to make money to live and not live off a "Genus Grant" from colleges. What the XFree86 License just adds is the persons recognition to the projects in all distributions of it. So now when these people want to get an other job (that makes them money to live) They can reference their contribution to Xfree86 in their resume and they can back it up by showing their name in any distribution it comes with. I do feel sorry for you if you are grateful for a small percentage of people who alert you when they see something they think is wrong. It is to bad you cannot think for yourself.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.

Just Wondering If This Is What Dawes et al. Want? by judmarc · 2004-02-29 09:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

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....

Re:What??? by Azureflare · 2004-02-29 09:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

I agree your original post didn't deserve a flamebait rating. However, I will say I don't believe that forks will cause fragmentation; in fact, I think different distros contribute to the versatility of linux. That's my own opinion, and you're entitled to your own =)

I'm not so sure incompatibility issues are a problem with forks, because most programmers try to get people to use their fork, and they won't intentionally break stuff. This is true even when you are making a new version of an application.

Of course, there IS a difference between forking and using a different prog for the graphical display; it would upset a lot of things if something other than X was used as a desktop; but if that alternative was close to X, then all it would take is some rewrites and dep changes (OK so it would be more complicated, but not impossible) and then everything would be fine after that change.

As you point out, some of what happens, re. forking is destructive, but it is also very constructive (i.e. competition) and I don't think it means linux will die.

I don't know if Xfree86 is completely impossible to fix at this point; I hope the Xfree team aren't intentionally writing their license to cause problems with GPL, but if they are, then a fork with the xfree codebase prior to the license change won't cause major compatibility issues because it's basically 4.4 before the 4.4 license. I'm not exactly sure when the new license takes effect or which codebase the fork can start from; I'm not terribly familiar with the project. I'm sure there are many others here who are posting/have posted on this subject.

Remember XFree... by sla291 · 2004-02-29 09:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

What's the license change? by Lothsahn · 2004-02-29 09:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

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=-

Re:What's the license change? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-29 15:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

The sibling poster said simply that they added an advertising clause. This may not explain why everyone is in such a furor about it, so I'll explain.

The advertising clause simply requires that people who use the software give credit to the XFree86 organization where other credit is given. If you don't give credit to anyone, then just including the license (which I believe is required anyway) is enough.

Now, why is this such a big deal? Lots of people on Slashdot are wondering this. Why not give credit where it is obviously due? The truth is, nobody is upset about giving credit where credit is due. People are upset about GPL-compatibility.

See, BSD 3-clause licenses and the old X license were GPL compatible, which means that they can be relicensed under the GPL. That means that if I write a program and put it under the GPL, and I also want to use X libraries, I don't have any problems. As you probably know, much of what makes X11 usable on the desktop is GPL'd.

So basically, the problem isn't actually the advertising clause, the problem is that, if, for example, libXext is licensed in a way that is GPL-incompatible, then every GPL program that uses it suddenly can't use it anymore (this is all of GNOME, for example.)

So the problem is much more than just the advertising clause. It's about making X legally incompatible with most of the X apps used on linux today.

And from the BSD side of things, even OpenBSD (who hates the GPL with a passion) is critical of the new license, because it's wording isn't similar enough to legacy BSD licenses.

Re:From the FAQ (re GPL + APL-2.0) by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · 2004-02-29 09:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

happened several times to my company by Ender+Ryan · 2004-02-29 09:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

The tiny company I work for has had this happen several times over the past several years(3 times in under 7 years IIRC).

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

RMS doesn't like it? by EvilAlien · 2004-02-29 10:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

Someone should tell the XFree86 people, because they seem to think otherwise. The bit on the XFree86 Project License Modification says:

The XFree86 Project, Inc is announcing that it has made a change to its license effective with the Third Release Candidate for the 4.4.0 series. This licence, like our previous, is fully free, (how do we know this? no less than the world authority on free software, RMS, has said so) and it's the hope of the XFree86 Project to no longer allow non-free licences into our tree so we can become a fully free-software compliant X product.

Whatever the issue is, Open Source is going to suffer for this squabble. The GPL acting as a roadblock to integration of new technology for the desktop is just going to prove Microsoft's point that the license is eeeeevvuuuuull. I think this may do more real damage to "The Cause" then the fiaSCO.

--
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'

Really? by mindstrm · 2004-02-29 11:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

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...

Re:So they stick to the new license... by 10101001+10101001 · 2004-02-29 11:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

> Does the GPL mean whatever the FSF decides it means that week? Or, in a country governed by the rule of law, does it mean no more and no less that what it be proven to mean in court?

Fine, the FSF states that the GPL and such and such license are incompatible. Maybe you don't agree, and you're certainly allowed to go off and treat them as compatible. And if someone gets sued over it because of what you did, you'll be held responsible if they're proven to be incompatible along with anyone else who knew you included such and such licensed code with the GPL code. I'd personally rather side on caution, especially when what the FSF is saying doesn't sound like FUD. I don't need a court telling me using a stapler to commit murder is homicide.

--
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h

The GPL license should change by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-29 13:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

"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.

Re:Follow the money.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-29 13:31 · Score: 1, Interesting

Once you filter out FUD from vendors, what issues are left?

[cut: one link to xfree86.org]

[cut: one link to xfree86.org]

Interesting how you claim that those Linux "vendors" (is Debian really a vendor?) are spreading FUD with no particular argument to support that claim, then link to nothing but pages at xfree86's site.

Gee, yeah, after you eliminate one side of an argument for no reason, the other side's point of view does seem to clearly win out...

Are you for real? by bonch · 2004-02-29 13:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

XFree86/freedesktop-kernel interaction? by 0x0d0a · 2004-02-29 14:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

Re:XFree86 and licensing by leandrod · 2004-02-29 14:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

> 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.

Not quite. I had a sideline participation at the time, emailing the X folks and putting them in contact with RMS.

In fact RMS and X were working out an agreement to GNU GPL the whole shebang, thus keeping it free while preserving The Open Group's interests, but XFree was adamant against it.

That move at the time would have preserved X.org, which today is basically a non-entity.

--
Leandro GuimarÃ£es Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin

Re:features? by cheesybagel · 2004-02-29 15:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

And a bad low-level windowing system at that. The 2D drawing API is something out of the stone age. The color system for one, is horribly complicated. Only supporting 24-bit displays helps cut the insanity somehow, since this way you sidestep the braindamaged palette allocation routines.

I should know, since I actually had to program on it. It also has no native support for alpha blending, anti-aliasing, double buffering, splines or beziers, anything that was leading edge back in the 1980s. Don't talk to me about extensions. This sort of thing should be standard be now. If the platform does not natively support it the API should provide software emulation. I don't want to make several application backends, reinvent the wheel so my program will work on all Linux desktops for something basic like double buffering.

Some concepts are nice. Like network graphics capability. That is a good thing. But I still think the best idea would be just to make a new windowing system and build X11 compatibility on top of that. Like Apple did with MacOS X.

38 of 531 comments (clear)