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."
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!
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.
Who cares about GPL-compatibility? It has to be Theo-compatible to be part of OpenBSD.
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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
NetBSD is mostly US.
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!
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.
Compare Apache license in OpenBSD cvsweb with the XFree 86 4.4 license and clue me into what's the difference between these except for the organization name and URL?
Hmm... let's see if I got this right.
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?
The reason for the bruhaha is nothing more than laziness on the part of the various distros.
Talk about far out in left field!!!
People are talking about backporting and forking and you believe such bruhaha is because they are simply lazy?
Who the hell moderated this up to 5 Informative?
You think coders are too lazy to print a single string?
Absurd.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
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.
Who cares about GPL-compatibility? It has to be Theo-compatible to be part of OpenBSD.
Forks are good, if you look at ipf vs pf.
Or linux and... oh right, linux isn't really free software.
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.