XFree86 Alters License 430
kinema writes "According to the XFree86 announcement starting with XFree86 v4.4.0-RC3 there will be a new license. There are some worries that these changes might be incompatible with the GPL." The FSF has a good page about the problems with BSD-style advertising clauses, which ironically uses XFree86's old license as an example of one to emulate.
Not advertising.... (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway this seems to be rather stupid move, XFree86 seems to have enough problems (infighting, resulting diverting and forks...) already without any license trouble. If it ends up incompatible, all the more reason to concentrate on those, if the XFree86 folks want to shoot themselves to foot and slowly bleed to death, it's their choice - very stupid one but it's their nevertheless.
Babelfished (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway... enjoy.
=-=-=
Does XFree86 GPL become incompatible?
Sent of demon at the Fr, 30 January 2004 around 10:21
Durch a change of the license regulations will will become the coming version of XFree86 incompatible to the well-known GPL and a linking of GPL applications to XFree86 "problematic".
Hardly the turbulences in the XFree86-Lager grew silent, seem a further controversy from the fence to to break. As David Dawes of the XFree86-Projekt communicated, the XFree86-Projekt changes its license on a new version 1.1. A change of the license represents no point at issue in the reason still, became nevertheless already in the past restrictive licenses of liberals. This time the situation seems to be however more problematic, because XFree86 becomes more restrictive.
As license can be taken further very much from the liberal, can be changed, driven out and applied all programs under the "XFree86 License 1,1" without publication of the source code. Again was added however a clause, which means that each distribution and each product, which contain XFree86 must attach a note either in the documentation or in the application on XFree86 ("This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc. (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors"). That is problematic, as the Free software Foundation already meant in another case.
The organization had not GPL compatibly classified the first version of the BSD license in the past as and had expressed substantial doubts against a linking of GPL- and BSD applications. The famous "BSD advertising clause" does not make the license unfree, cause however practical problems, including an incompatibility with the GNU GPL, so the Foundation. In the past the Free software Foundation guessed/advised to use the straight XFree86-Lizenz because it was to a large extent with the BSD license compatible and the notorious clause does not contain. Thus conclusion might probably be, because a determination of the BSD clause as "GPL incompatible" makes automatically also the new XFree86-Lizenz for GPL applications "problematic".
Which follows from the earlier declaration of the BSD license, could extensive consequences both for the Distributoren as well as for other manufacturers have. Thus GPL applications may be linked against an GPL incompatible library, this require however a note in the source code - a condition, which will fulfill hardly an application. If this note is not contained, linking is not permitted.
Thus either if XFree86 should not change their license or the Free software Foundation their declaration, then the current version of XFree86 will be probably also last release delivered by the Distributoren. Because it is questionable whether Distributoren get involved in a "problematic" use. Options during a non--change might be either freedesktop.org, Xouvert or a new Fork. Not completely averse would be also the developers. As pro Linux from KDE Entwicklerkreisen experienced, also they are not with XFree86 content and think ever more frequently about one transferred to freedesktop.org. (thanks at Rene.)
Re:Contributed code (Score:2, Informative)
From the article: "The license change applies to the base XFree86 license, and to source files that explicitly carry a copyright notice in the name of The XFree86 Project, Inc. Copyrights and licenses in the names of others will not be affected by this change."
Re:yep... (Score:3, Informative)
This seems to be a big difference in practice - even hundreds of such lines in the docs would be manageable, while it would be pretty much impossible to include them all in, say, a banner ad.
Of course, this doesn't mean that it's not GPL-incompatible, because it still is a requirement the GPL doesn't have. But frankly, who cares?
translation: Does XFree86 GPL become incompatible? (Score:2, Informative)
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl? url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pro-linux.de%2Fnews%2F2004%2F 6414.html&lp=de_en&tt=url [altavista.com]
----
Does XFree86 GPL become incompatible?
Sent of demon [mailto] at the Fr, 30 January 2004 around 10:21
Does a change of the license regulations will will become the coming version of XFree86 incompatible to the well-known GPL and a linking of GPL applications to XFree86 "problematic".
Hardly the turbulences in the XFree86-Lager [pro-linux.de] grew silent, seem a further controversy from the fence to to break. As David Dawes of the XFree86-Projekt communicated [xfree86.org], the XFree86-Projekt changes its license on a new version 1.1 [xfree86.org]. A change of the license represents no point at issue in the reason still, became nevertheless already in the past [pro-linux.de] restrictive licenses of liberals. This time the situation seems to be however more problematic, because XFree86 becomes more restrictive.
As license can be taken further very much from the liberal, can be changed, driven out and applied all programs under the "XFree86 License 1,1" without publication of the source code. Again was added however a clause, which means that each distribution and each product, which contain XFree86 must attach a note either in the documentation or in the application on XFree86 ("This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc. (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors"). That is problematic, as the Free software Foundation already meant in another case.
The organization had not GPL compatibly classified [gnu.org]the first version of the BSD license in the past [gnu.org]as and [gnu.org]had expressed substantial [gnu.org] doubts [gnu.org]against a linking of GPL- and BSD applications. The famous "BSD advertising clause" does not make the license unfree, cause however practical problems, including an incompatibility with the GNU GPL, so the Foundation. In the past the Free software Foundation guessed/advised to use the straight XFree86-Lizenz because it was to a large extent with the BSD license compatible and the notorious clause does not contain. Thus conclusion might probably be, because a determination of the BSD clause as "GPL incompatible" makes automatically also the new XFree86-Lizenz for GPL applications "problematic".
Which follows from the earlier declaration of the BSD license, could extensive consequences both for the Distributoren as well as for other manufacturers have. Thus GPL applications may be linked [gnu.org]against an GPL incompatible [gnu.org]library, this require however a note in the source code - a condition, which will fulfill hardly an application. If this note is not contained, linking is not permitted.
Thus either if XFree86 should not change their license or the Free software Foundation their declaration, then the current version of XFree86 will be probably also last release delivered by the Distributoren. Because it is questionable whether Distributoren get involved in a "problematic" use. Options during a non--change might be [pro-linux.de]eith
Re:Contributed code (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Contributed code (Score:4, Informative)
The previous license explicitly allowed sublicensing, and the XFree86 Project is doing exactly that.
human translation of the german article (Score:5, Informative)
The upcoming version of XFree86 is, due to a change in the licensing agreement, incompatible with the well-known GPL, and linking GPL applications with XFree86 will present itself as "problematic."
The troubles in the XFree-86 camp have just died down, but a further problem is beating at the gates. As David Dawes from the XFree-86 Project shared, the XFree-86 Project is changing its license to a new version 1.1. A change in the license does not, in principle, present a reason for causing problems, restrictive licensces have become more liberal in the past. The situation is, however, this time more problematic - the XFree86 license is getting more restrictive.
The license can still be seen as very liberal - all programs under the "XFree86 License 1.1" can be used, published, and advertised without the publication of the source code. A new addition, however, is a clause which states that every distribution and every product that contain XFree86 must affix a remark, either in the documentation or in the application ("This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors"). This is problematic, as the Free Software Foundation has remarked in another case.
The organization has classified the first version of the BSD license as not GPL-compatible in the past, and expressed doubts reguarding the linking of GPL and BST applications. The famous "BSD Advertising Clause" doesn't make the license non-free, but causes ither problems, including an incompatability with the GNU GPL, and for that reason the foundation [GNU] has asked the Free Software Foundation in the past to use the XFree86 license, because it is largely compatible with the BSD license and does not include the feared advertising clause. And with that may be the end, because assigning the BSD-clause as "GPL incompatible" makes the new XFree86 License for GPL applications automatically problematic.
The resolts of the earlier BSD License's declaration could have far-reaching effects for the distributors as well as for other manufacturers. GPL applications are allowed to be linked to a GPL incompatible library, with the need for a remark in the source code - a condition that will be met by very few applications. When the remark is not present, the linking is not allowed.
If XFree86 doesn't change its license, and the Free Software Foundation doesn't change its declaration, then the latest version of XFree86 will also be the last release rolled out by the distributors, because it is questionable whether distributors will get involved with a "problematic" use of the software. When the license is not changed, the options will be either freedesktop.org, Xouvert, or a new fork. Developers could be not entirely dissatisfied. As Pro-Linux from KDE-developer circles experienced, the developers are also not entirely satisfied with XFree86 and are still thinking about changing to freedesktop.org (thanks to rene.)
Possible problems for fbcon, DirectFB, etc (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:eh (Score:5, Informative)
Re:GPL popularity? (Score:2, Informative)
OpenSSH is licensed under the GPL-compatible BSD license.
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:3, Informative)
How so? You simply deny, give no evidence or explanation and accuse me of being the troll.
I was there at CERN. I watched Marc do what he did. I lost my job at CERN when the management shut the Web down there, largely because Marc had stolen the credit.
Don't put your code out without requiring credit, it may seem trivial to ask, you don't know how you will be betrayed though.
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think you're right about the objective, but that's largely irrelevant to the discussion. The point is, plenty of companies base their business model on the GPL. Trolltech [trolltech.com] are a good example - having discussed licensing matters with Trolltech sales staff in a business context, I can tell you that nobody believes in "IP rights" more strongly than they do. They sell proprietary software, too. The GPL "just works" for them - it's a practical business reality, not a political standpoint.