Because the OS is fully functional with one button and because on a laptop, if you're using the trackpad, your hand is near the keyboard, so you can use the damn modifier keys.
Just a note, a budget surplus is not the same as having 0 national debt. (Remember all the people saying how the surplus should be used to pay down the debt?)
It's not drconian though. Draconian is to quote the dictionary "excedeingly harsh and severe". Requiring you to give credit where credit is due is not either.
Yet the GPL is compatible with licenses that don't require you to release the source (IIRC), it just considers these non-copyleft code. ANd since the XFree86 license does not prevent people from distributing the source, I'm failing to see where the problem lies.
You would either put it there, or make some documentation, or if you hide and move those credits, you would put it where you put the credits. It's very simple.
Having read that, I'm not so sure that there's any question whether this is compatible or not. The XFree86 license allows the acknowledgement to be included in the software itself which sounds a lot like:
you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice
That shouldn't matter. It's placing an additional restriction on the user, and if the bitching is to be beleived, that makes it incompatible with the GPL
An important strength of free and open source is that you know that there'll be no legal wrangling if you just follow a few simple rules, and the new license might very well destroy that advantage.
So how is the simple rule of acknowledging where you get your code from going to detroy OSS?
The license also very clearly states that the acknowledgement has to go in the end user documentation or where you include acknowledgements IN the software. Neither is on the box.
f they've used GPL code in XFree86 then they're stuck with the GPL license or removing the code. Those are their only two legal options.
You have to prove they're useing GPLed code first.
No, that wouldn't work. The License file is very clear and very specific. You include the acknowledgement in the end user documentation, or you include it where you include your other acknowledgements IN the software.
It's similar, but it's not the same as the advertising clause, and this must be looked at seperately. The 3rd clause if very clear, if you distribute enduser documentation, you include an acknowledgement in the acknowledgements section. Very simple, and non invasive. It doesn't create the same practical failures.
Not just that. GPL code requires that you make all your source available, even of branches that you've modified for your own use if you publish the binaries. XFree86 refuses to use GPL, and GPL-based tools that are offered for XFree86 use will not be accepted under their licensing, so these truly open-source tools do not get included in XFree86.
And if this has been XFree86's policy for a while, why is it just now a problem?
It's a separate but equally nasty and deeply related problem. The XFree86 team is willing to accept simple acknowledgement of their authorship, where the GPL and other open source projects insist on publishing your source code. The XFree86 approach allows people to modify things for proprietary tools and development without giving it back to the community that developed the basic tools in the first place.
Which sounds to me like the definition of a non-copyleft license which are compatible with the GPL.
Except it doesn't require it on the box. It requires it in one of two places either in teh software itself, or int he end user documentation, where you put all your other acknowledgements.
And "there might be GPL code" in XFree86 sounds an awful lot like SCO chargeing people for copyright violation because there might be some infringing code.
Not really, because the license says it just has to be included where you include all your other acknowledgements. Advertising something as being iTunes DRM compatible is not the same as making an acknowledgement of code use or developers.
They're having a hissy fit over a license that requires you to acknowledge if/when you use xfree86 and that tells you to incluse that acknowledgement in the same place you include other acknowledgements about your software?
And according to their system, you're being charged with tax evasion. You have two choices, you can take it up with them, or take it to the courts. It's your decision.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the OS is fully functional with one button and because on a laptop, if you're using the trackpad, your hand is near the keyboard, so you can use the damn modifier keys.
That's when you go get the mouse drivers that turn teh physical button into a right click, and the pad itself into a left click. Problem solved.
Did I mention teh driver also adds scroll zones to the sides of the trackpad?
They may not anymore, but Adobe used to do crossgrades for the price of an upgrade.
Just a note, a budget surplus is not the same as having 0 national debt. (Remember all the people saying how the surplus should be used to pay down the debt?)
It's not drconian though. Draconian is to quote the dictionary "excedeingly harsh and severe". Requiring you to give credit where credit is due is not either.
Yet the GPL is compatible with licenses that don't require you to release the source (IIRC), it just considers these non-copyleft code. ANd since the XFree86 license does not prevent people from distributing the source, I'm failing to see where the problem lies.
For not having a market, Apple and Yellowdog linux seem to be doing very nicely. Not to mention the fact that there is more to PPC than just macs
You would either put it there, or make some documentation, or if you hide and move those credits, you would put it where you put the credits. It's very simple.
I want to know what the difference is between the quoted snipets and the XFree86 license.
The FSF may disagree, but the source quoted and the XFree license look awfuly similar to me. Would you mind telling us what the difference is?
Having read that, I'm not so sure that there's any question whether this is compatible or not. The XFree86 license allows the acknowledgement to be included in the software itself which sounds a lot like:
you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice
That shouldn't matter. It's placing an additional restriction on the user, and if the bitching is to be beleived, that makes it incompatible with the GPL
An important strength of free and open source is that you know that there'll be no legal wrangling if you just follow a few simple rules, and the new license might very well destroy that advantage.
So how is the simple rule of acknowledging where you get your code from going to detroy OSS?
The license also very clearly states that the acknowledgement has to go in the end user documentation or where you include acknowledgements IN the software. Neither is on the box.
f they've used GPL code in XFree86 then they're stuck with the GPL license or removing the code. Those are their only two legal options.
You have to prove they're useing GPLed code first.
No, that wouldn't work. The License file is very clear and very specific. You include the acknowledgement in the end user documentation, or you include it where you include your other acknowledgements IN the software.
How is mandrake and RH distributing XFree86 with their build requiring others to include acknowledgements?
It's similar, but it's not the same as the advertising clause, and this must be looked at seperately. The 3rd clause if very clear, if you distribute enduser documentation, you include an acknowledgement in the acknowledgements section. Very simple, and non invasive. It doesn't create the same practical failures.
Not just that. GPL code requires that you make all your source available, even of branches that you've modified for your own use if you publish the binaries. XFree86 refuses to use GPL, and GPL-based tools that are offered for XFree86 use will not be accepted under their licensing, so these truly open-source tools do not get included in XFree86.
And if this has been XFree86's policy for a while, why is it just now a problem?
It's a separate but equally nasty and deeply related problem. The XFree86 team is willing to accept simple acknowledgement of their authorship, where the GPL and other open source projects insist on publishing your source code. The XFree86 approach allows people to modify things for proprietary tools and development without giving it back to the community that developed the basic tools in the first place.
Which sounds to me like the definition of a non-copyleft license which are compatible with the GPL.
Again, I fail to see the problem.
Except it doesn't require it on the box. It requires it in one of two places either in teh software itself, or int he end user documentation, where you put all your other acknowledgements.
And "there might be GPL code" in XFree86 sounds an awful lot like SCO chargeing people for copyright violation because there might be some infringing code.
WTF? How is requiring people who use your code to acknowledge that they use your code trying to make your software the next microsoft?
Not really, because the license says it just has to be included where you include all your other acknowledgements. Advertising something as being iTunes DRM compatible is not the same as making an acknowledgement of code use or developers.
They're having a hissy fit over a license that requires you to acknowledge if/when you use xfree86 and that tells you to incluse that acknowledgement in the same place you include other acknowledgements about your software?
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=140
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=131
That's not the point that was being made, the point was, if you're having trouble feeding your kids, WTF are you doing paying for internet access?
And according to their system, you're being charged with tax evasion. You have two choices, you can take it up with them, or take it to the courts. It's your decision.