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."
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: 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.
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.
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....
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?
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.
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
And the rest of us will use XOrg
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.
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.
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.
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.