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
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/
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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/
* 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.
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 ----
Perhaps it's best to list the main changes or include a link to the changelog.
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).
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
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.
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....
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.
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.
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"
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.
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!
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
*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.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
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...
Eh? Elsewhere it's been said that drivers have to be rewritten for the freedesktop.org software, and I'm sure it has to be rewritten for Y. Graphics card makers are notorious for refusing to release the information required to allow open source drivers--suppose they refuse to write more than one version, and stick with XFree86? PCI Express will take over from AGP, if I read the chipset roadmap articles rightly just this morning...so if the manufacturers stick with providing binary-only drivers for XFree86, how will anyone, much less Granny, be able to use a free X?
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.
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.)
...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
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.
Likewise with the GPL. It's copyright law that prohibits redistributing code without permission. The GPL, like the Microsoft EULA, does not give you permission to redistribute the code under a BSD license. Consequently, unless you have some other permission, copyright law prohibits you from doing so.
"Virality" is equally meaningful or meaningless in both cases.
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?
...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?
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
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.
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
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
I think this is ncurses big chance for a come back. Everyone looking for XFree86 alternative, look no further!