jschauma writes "It appears that, unlike many other Open Source projects, NetBSD did not find any serious problems
with the much-debated license change of XFree86 4.4.0: it was just imported
into the tree."
Oh my gods, the/. troll strike again. Why don't you have a look at the clock, look up the timezone UTC+1, and nod understandingly that a human being has made an error due to lack of sleep?
-- My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And/. still does not get UTF-8 right in 2012. Wow.)
Well, since the dispute was about weather or not the new XFree86 licens was GPL-compatable, and NetBSD isn't under the GPL, you wouldn't expect them to have a problem.
Actually you wouldn't expect any of the Linux distros to have a problem either, since the XFree86 libraries are NOT under this new license. But I guess it's just too much fun waging holy wars...
-- Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
At least one BSD is unhappy about the prospect of the new license and is threatening to fork. Hopefully everyone can get together and have a single fork with a license like the older X license if it does end up coming to a fork.
-- And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
Re:Duh
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
yeah theo can show and put their hands where his mouth is.
WE want to see that XFree86 openbsd fork. Add to that an Apache fork either.
Or perhaps theo is waiting for their counterpart, new friends, mandrake and redhat to go further with their own GPL Xfree fork, maybe thats it..
Re:Duh
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually you wouldn't expect any of the Linux distros to have a problem either, since the XFree86 libraries are NOT under this new license.
They were when this whole mess began.
But I guess it's just too much fun waging holy wars...
Yes, Mandrake and other distributions intentionally dropped a new version with new features and better driver support because it was fun. Either that or they couldn't tolerate a last-minute license switch that wasn't discussed and they weren't warned about.
yeah theo can show and put their hands where his mouth is.
WE want to see that XFree86 openbsd fork.
Add to that an Apache fork either.
OpenBSD imported the latest release candidate of Xfree86 with the old license (minus a few files with new license) for use in the upcoming OpenBSD 3.5. So this could be considered a fork.
The Apache httpd server (1.3.29 + patches of about 4000 lines) is in maintenance mode, and Apache httpd 2.0 won't be in OpenBSD anytime soon, with or without the new license.
the XFree86 libraries are NOT under this new license.
Sure, Xlib isn't under the new XFree86 license, but some of the other client libraries such as the one for XRender support are, which makes XRender of XFree86 4.4 incompatible with GPL apps.
Re:Duh
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Apache fork? Why? The old Apache licences weren't GPL-compatible either. If that bothers you, you need to write a new webserver from scratch, not fork.
Oh swweet! It's just like like "Where's Waldo"!
Here is what you are looking for(part not in apache):
"and in the same place and form as other copyright, license and disclaimer information."
And here is the complete section from the XFree86 License V1.1:
"Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution, and in the same place and form as other copyright, license and disclaimer information."
The argument is that if everyone requires them to place their information everywhere that there is a copyright, etc... that this could get out of control.
The apache license is vague enough to allow you to place the license in a file included with with the binary instead of everywhere in your distro.
You seem to have some sort of personal gripe against Theo. Look at Darren Reed and IPFilter. He for whatever reason decided to change the IPF license. The OpenBSD developers (not just Theo) decided this was incompatible so they wrote a replacement instead of just standing around griping.
-- Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Re:Duh
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I don't think you've researched this yourself; are you aware that an equivalent license was already used on a number of existing XFree86 files, and apparently the Linux distributions either
* Were violating the license, or
* Did not previously care about it?
This whole thing is one big knee-jerk.
Re:Duh
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yeah, instead of just talking to Darren about it. FreeBSD developers just discussed it with him and resolved the matter quickly and without needing to go on a recoding rampage.
No, I just said that that it's not the GPL that blocks XFree4.4 from getting into OpenBSD since OpenBSD is NOT RELEASED UNDER THE GPL.
The philosophy behind OpenBSD is based on Theo, the decisons what licences are acceptable for OpenBSD are based on its philosophy so in the end they have to be Theo compatible.
Re:Duh
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You can say that for every other projects can't you?
The philosophy behind Linux is based on RMS, the decisons what licences are acceptable for Linux are based on its philosophy so in the end they have to be RMS compatible.
Freedom should be understandable by everyone, not exclusive to you and your lawyers.
Re:Duh
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
are you aware that an equivalent license was already used on a number of existing XFree86 files
It has to be Theo-compatible to be part of OpenBSD. (from grandparent)
Methinks he's quite accurate.
Note that there's no connotation that there is anything wrong with that.
Don't be fooled by the fact that you can download it or buy the CDs cheap. OpenBSD has very much the feel of an exclusive club. A very exclusive club which owns a rather good and secure OS. By owns, I mean that you or I cannot afford to buy an opinion that makes any difference. I rather doubt that Bill Gates could buy what those people own. Outside users are tolerated, and it's not from altruism. If there's a land mine in it, they'd rather I run into it first.
O.T. Microsoft Office leaves you stranded on a mountain top without survival gear or climbing gear. Worse than being up a creek without a paddle.
Re:Duh
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
But OpenBSD is more anal about their licenses. Unlike (Net|Free)BSD, they don't accept licenses with special exemptions allowing them to use it; they require licenses to specifically be BSD-like.
Umm, its OpenBSD that's Canadian
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0, Insightful
NetBSD is mostly US.
Re:Umm, its OpenBSD that's Canadian
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If by "US", you mean Japan, then yes, you're right.
Can someone explain why open source projects are rejecting the new XFree86 license? I looked it over and it looked OK to me, at least for BSD-licensed projects.
Re:Explain
by
Via_Patrino
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I don't know very well since it (what's covered or not) changes all the time, the major problem is with linking.
With the new version you can't make link to GPL programs using Xfree86 As most of the programs (even on *BSD projects) are GPL you can't not run them (I think an exception is when you compile yourself). I'm not sure that problem was resolved.
The other problem is with code reutilization. A lot of people don't want to contribute to a project where code won't be possible to be used in other projects that use GPL (don't know about BSD) because they're incompatible licenses.
Ok, you usually hold copyright for your own code, but, in a project, code often mix so much with other people code. And you don't just code: you debug, test and improve existing code.
Those people aren't interested in making that effort to a code that will be just used by projects (compatible) with that license.
I also looked at the license, looks OK. Maybe it's a practical matter, that with the old license you don't have to do anything. But with the new license you have to remember to say "This product includes..." blaa. I think this practice is already a problem, see for example this blaa blaa blaa. Since NetBSD also does that blaa, I don't think they mind XFree86 doing that too... I totally understand all projects rejecting new license, since they can spend less time on blaa blaa blaa.
Dude, you are so far out in left field, you may as well start planting daisies.
The new license does *NOT* apply to any of the XFree86 libraries. Hence, there *ARE NO CHANGES* in the way things work, regarding linking to XFree86 libraries. IOW, NOTHING HAS CHANGED, in this regard.
The reason for the bruhaha is nothing more than laziness on the part of the various distros. They don't want to take the time to put "This project includes software from the XFree86 Project." into any of the end-user documentation. IOW, nobody wants to give credit to the XFree86 Project, yet they all want to use software from the XFree86 Project.
Re:Explain
by
Via_Patrino
·
· Score: 4, Informative
All right, I said before I wasn't sure. That's why I didn't give myself karma. But since other people tagged me informative/interesting or they knew very little about the subject (I'm not so far) or there's some real stuff in my comment.
Probably the license on the libs didn't changed, but the news about it did (there was a lot of confusion when the license changed).
Then I prefer to link to what Branden Robinson and Theo de Raadt say. Theo (from this and other posts) and other members of the openbsd team seen to be concerned about wording, future legal problems and making openbsd less free.
In the words of David Dawes, they "deferred" applying the license to the client libraries. They still intend to eventually.
Beyond that, it's indicative of an attitude and motivations that simply don't mesh well with what the community expects.
I certainly wouldn't mind seeing freedesktop.org replace the xfree86 project.
Re:Explain
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"The community" is welcome to fork the project and do what they want with it.
*You* are personally contributing to this new effort, right? *You* are personally cranking out gpl-safe code for freedesktop.org, right?
What's that? You're not? Then get over the religious license noise and give credit where credit is due: to the xfree86 people who have put actual real honest to god time into making something totally for *free* for all the useless lazy non-contributors such as yourself and only want a lousy "xfree86 wrote some of this" stuck in the same place where all the other third party people get credit.
"The community" has no right to expect anything from anyone that "the community" isn't paying for.
I'm so sick and tired of all you whiners out here putting all your tedious demands on people who are donating their time, skill, and experience so you can have free stuff. Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth....
Well, there is a good reason to avoid 4.4, if it really touches commonly used client libs. It is a hassle and sets a precedent.
I don't want to administer an OSS project that has to make dozens of these lines to each every stupid tool, and check them for each release or import.
It's like those freeware postcard licenses, the originators aren't evil, but in practice it simply puts too much of a break on usability the of the projects source.
Re:Explain
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Because of the advertising requirement. If you include XFree86 4.4 you have to advertise it. So if everyone gets what they want Debian would be known as Debian/GNU/XFree86 Linux, or Red Hat/XFree86 Linux, Gentoo/XFree86 Linux etc etc... that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Re:Explain
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Who's complaining in the OpenBSD camp? The license wasn't compatible, so they're forking. That's the best about Open Source - freedom. When nobody uses your code that you "are donating their time, skill, and experience", you'll be the one whining and change your license. It'll be too late then, but who cares. Forks are good, if you look at ipf vs pf.
Re:Explain
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
RMS is mad at the XFree86-people because they want some credits?
But's it's ok for RMS to force everyone and their mother to call linux for GNU/linux?
You've got it backwards. XFree changed their license, thus _forcing_ an advertising clause on users. RMS merely _wants_ credit, so he asks for credit, albiet loudly:). At least he didn't change any legal contracts (software licenses) to do it.
See how you've got it backwards?
Re:Explain
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Forks are good, if you look at ipf vs pf.
Or linux and... oh right, linux isn't really free software.
Stallman's desire is not incorporated in the GPL, nuff said. It is simply his very strong opinion.
Re:We're Canadian, eh!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Don't you mean OpenBSD?
Just in time!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Great,
This is just in time for the release of ATI Radeon for XFree86 4.3
Re:We're Canadian, eh!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That's interesting... I didn't realize NetBSD was Canadian. I wonder if this has anything to do with Service Corporation International's (NYSE:SRV) recent decision to expand into Canada?
Let's go back to the portability's future.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Let's go back to XFree86 3.3.x and install VESA 2.0 because it was done and did work well.
3D-accelerators are not useful to compile programs:P.
open4free
Re:Excellent
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Argh, *sets 'Plain Old Text' as default*
FreeBSD
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Informative
According to a FreeBSD-x11 thread, XFree86 4.4.0 will definitely be integrated to FreeBSD's ports collection too.
It looks like the license is only a problem for some Linux distros and Theo.
Re:FreeBSD
by
BattleBlow
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
However, this is a completely different situation than NetBSD importing it.
NetBSD and OpenBSD both distribute X as a distribution set, that is, as part of the main operating system. They maintain a separate source tree for X inside their main repositories.
This is quite different from being part of the FreeBSD ports collection which houses a diverse collection of third party software, much of which would never be incorporated into FreeBSD itself due to license incompatbilities. So, the question of whether FreeBSD has a problem is not being addressed by its presence in the ports collection since the ports collection can contain pretty much anything, including ports of commercial software.
FreeBSD will too, probably
by
marcovje
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I saw several comments on the freebsd-ports list that the FreeBSD troops see no problem in the adoption either.
The reason was also the same, clientside libs seem to go free.
Re:FreeBSD will too, probably
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Do you know what ports are? Problems with licenses are in root distribution, not ports.
Re:FreeBSD will too, probably
by
marcovje
·
· Score: 1
The FreeBSD project builds and ships ISOs. Then they are responsable for license problems in them
But's it's ok for RMS to force everyone and their mother to call linux for GNU/linux?
For the record, RMS merely kvetches endlessly on this topic. He has never, as far as I know, tried to make "GNU/Linux" a legally binding requirement of the use or redistribution of the GNU tools -- a legal move like that is literally against his religion.
-- 2*3*3*3*3*11*251
True freedom is limited freedom, mkay?
by
Korpo
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Some of the things I noticed:
Someone compared the Apache and the XFree86 license. This is not valid. Apache is a program, like many others, that can be perfectly run on a GNU/Linux or BSD platform, without being GPL-compatible. X11 is part of a modern UNIX/Linux infrastructure on desktop PCs, and changes to its license or the license of its libraries have far more consequences, because a lot of programs link to it (and of course there are extensions to it, too).
People tell, in their most impolite manner, other people around here, that the libs' licenses haven't changed yet. NOT YET! Being as selfcentered as the XFree86 project seems to be, it may not have noticed how many people depend on its code, and the project could have been much more polite and informative about its intentions. It's long enough around to know, so I guess they don't want to. To an outsider XFree86 seems to be a top-down and authoritarian project, with internal power plays and many hurt feelings, often enough bordering on the unprofessional. Maybe it was the last straw for the distributions. Being GPL-compatible IN THE LONG RUN matters.
Even BSD needs to be GPL-compatible in its infrastructure, because it depends on a lot of GPL code.
Oh, and a personal sidenote on freedom: I side with Kant. You can only be free, if you respect the freedom of others. Unlimited freedom for one person would in the long run limit the freedom of others. So taking part in society comes with duties. I think the GPL models this perfectly: You cannot take away and hide your changes to GPL'd code. You cannot stay "on the shoulders of giants", and hide what you've done. The necessity to provide source with GPL'd code enhances the freedom of the users and future developers, because it limits the freedom of present developers.
Try that with a BSD or MIT license. M$ Kerberos (MIT license) or M$ Services For Unix (derived from OpenBSD) anyone?
So please never underestimate the power of the GPL. It has attracted more open-source workforce in ten years than 30 years of BSD. Don't throw it away easily, because BSD benefits, too.
Good Time for BSD to Adopt XFree
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well, this is probably a good time for the BSD community merge the XFree 4.4 release and development people into the BSD community. (I guess they would call that a fork.) The recent developments with X.org throwing in the towel and creating a new X.org Foundation probably aren't good for the BSD community. The new X.org Foundation is going to be mostly controlled by the people at freedesktop.org (essentially the GNOME people) which probably means two things:
1. Future development of X will revolve around
what the developers and freedesktop.org think
is good for GNOME.
2. Future releases of X will be changed to use
a GPL license wherever/whenever possible
(which is incongruent with the goals of most
BSD projects).
Slashdot Mirror
aaaaaaaaaaaaaargh sorry sorry
I confused this with a German-language slashcode
using news site. many sorry.
it reads like "i was late, congrats to netbsd"
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
And the rest of us will use XOrg
Oh my gods, the /. troll strike again.
Why don't you have a look at the clock, look
up the timezone UTC+1, and nod understandingly
that a human being has made an error due to
lack of sleep?
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
Well, since the dispute was about weather or not the new XFree86 licens was GPL-compatable, and NetBSD isn't under the GPL, you wouldn't expect them to have a problem.
NetBSD is mostly US.
[x] Du bist _sehr_ verpeilt ;-)
Can someone explain why open source projects are rejecting the new XFree86 license? I looked it over and it looked OK to me, at least for BSD-licensed projects.
Don't you mean OpenBSD?
Great,
This is just in time for the release of ATI Radeon for XFree86 4.3
That's interesting... I didn't realize NetBSD was Canadian. I wonder if this has anything to do with Service Corporation International's (NYSE:SRV) recent decision to expand into Canada?
3D-accelerators are not useful to compile programs :P.
open4free
Argh, *sets 'Plain Old Text' as default*
According to a FreeBSD-x11 thread, XFree86 4.4.0 will definitely be integrated to FreeBSD's ports collection too.
It looks like the license is only a problem for some Linux distros and Theo.
I saw several comments on the freebsd-ports list that the FreeBSD troops see no problem in the adoption either.
The reason was also the same, clientside libs seem to go free.
That joke isn't funny anymore. Welcome to 2003.
"I lost [track of the] count"
It is in there, you dimwit.
But's it's ok for RMS to force everyone and their mother to call linux for GNU/linux?
For the record, RMS merely kvetches endlessly on this topic. He has never, as far as I know, tried to make "GNU/Linux" a legally binding requirement of the use or redistribution of the GNU tools -- a legal move like that is literally against his religion.
2*3*3*3*3*11*251
Some of the things I noticed:
Someone compared the Apache and the XFree86 license. This is not valid. Apache is a program, like many others, that can be perfectly run on a GNU/Linux or BSD platform, without being GPL-compatible. X11 is part of a modern UNIX/Linux infrastructure on desktop PCs, and changes to its license or the license of its libraries have far more consequences, because a lot of programs link to it (and of course there are extensions to it, too).
People tell, in their most impolite manner, other people around here, that the libs' licenses haven't changed yet. NOT YET! Being as selfcentered as the XFree86 project seems to be, it may not have noticed how many people depend on its code, and the project could have been much more polite and informative about its intentions. It's long enough around to know, so I guess they don't want to. To an outsider XFree86 seems to be a top-down and authoritarian project, with internal power plays and many hurt feelings, often enough bordering on the unprofessional. Maybe it was the last straw for the distributions. Being GPL-compatible IN THE LONG RUN matters.
Even BSD needs to be GPL-compatible in its infrastructure, because it depends on a lot of GPL code.
Oh, and a personal sidenote on freedom: I side with Kant. You can only be free, if you respect the freedom of others. Unlimited freedom for one person would in the long run limit the freedom of others. So taking part in society comes with duties. I think the GPL models this perfectly: You cannot take away and hide your changes to GPL'd code. You cannot stay "on the shoulders of giants", and hide what you've done. The necessity to provide source with GPL'd code enhances the freedom of the users and future developers, because it limits the freedom of present developers.
Try that with a BSD or MIT license. M$ Kerberos (MIT license) or M$ Services For Unix (derived from OpenBSD) anyone?
So please never underestimate the power of the GPL. It has attracted more open-source workforce in ten years than 30 years of BSD. Don't throw it away easily, because BSD benefits, too.
Well, this is probably a good time for the
BSD community merge the XFree 4.4 release
and development people into the BSD community.
(I guess they would call that a fork.) The
recent developments with X.org throwing in
the towel and creating a new X.org Foundation
probably aren't good for the BSD community.
The new X.org Foundation is going to be
mostly controlled by the people at freedesktop.org
(essentially the GNOME people) which probably
means two things:
1. Future development of X will revolve around
what the developers and freedesktop.org think
is good for GNOME.
2. Future releases of X will be changed to use
a GPL license wherever/whenever possible
(which is incongruent with the goals of most
BSD projects).
RMS doesn't suggest, he only whines :)