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.
eh (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the end of the world, but it (could) be annoying, that's for sure. I think thorough investigation is needed (e.g. try reading the license)
Why shouldn't it be? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the GPL is unwilling to be compatable with anyone else, why should anyone be too worried about being compatable with the GPL.
Remember. Open source =\= GPL.
Not a BSD-style clause. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the original BSD clause:
And here's the new XFree86 clause:
The problem with the original clause 3 of the BSD license is that it could lead to massive lists of acknowledgements tacked on to an advertisement meant to be fairly compact (e.g. a leaflette, banner ad, sign, billboard, whatever). This isn't the case with the new XFree86 license clause 3, where it only requires acknowledgement in the documentation or the software itself. While keeping track of those acknowledgements might prove difficult at times, it has nowhere NEAR the practical problems that the original BSD license had.
Advertising clause (Score:3, Insightful)
The new XFree86 license requires a statement in end user documentation, which is completely different. You can't really argue that adding a bunch of disclosures about where the modules you're using to your documentation is a huge burden. It doesn't add a substantial cost to your documentation, even if it's distributed in a printed form, unlike the cost of adding a page of disclosures to an ad.
Re:Not advertising.... (Score:4, Insightful)
So You Prefer Fragmentation over Cooperation (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL has been THE reference license since probably before you were born (tongue in cheek).
BSD and GPL are the two original free software licenses. The BSD folks have made an effort to insure that the BSD license is compatible with the GPL not because they share the GNU philosophy (they don't), but to avoid fragmenting the free software world through stupid licensing incompatibilities. FreeBSD changed their license to make it GPL compatible, and GPL v. 2 was changed likewise to be compatible with a wider range of interests (including commercial interests that are shared with the BSD community).
The GPL is the only license many enterprises will consider releasing their erstwhile proprietary code under, as it protects them from having competitors snatch up their code and incorporate it into a competing proprietary product (in their view, competing GPLed products are not an issue, as they can reincorporate the best improvement into their GPLed product). Many of us who write code will not consider a BSD style license because we do not want our code used by freeloaders who incorporate it into non-free, proprietary products.
There are enough (perhaps a majority, even) free software and open source developers who feel this way that the GPL is, if not the majority license, a sufficiently large piece of the OSS / FSS pie that being incompatible with it means losing a huge portion of the community's input and integration.
FreeBSD, as vehement as their disagreement with the GPL is, chose to deliberately modify their license to make it compatible with the GPL for exactly these reasons: because there is room in the community for both views, but no reason whatsoever to fragment the community over those views.
After all, if one licenses under a *BSD style license, and if therefor one doesn't mind having their code placed into a proprietary product, why should one mind having it incorporated into a GPLed product (unless one's goal is simply to fragment the free software world and undermine the cooperation that makes it so effective).
Which makes one wonder about the motives of someone who would post such an inane comment actively encouraging such small minded thinking ("we don't use their license, we don't like them, so why should we cooperate!")
At least GPL isnt an element of closed source (Score:3, Insightful)
GPL keeps source open, that might not be everyone's definition of open source
Re:English links (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course you could have also just looked at the link, seen it was in Germany, and not clicked on it. Or would that have been too much work?
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever noticed how in the Middle Ages the Church was much more concerned with suppressing heresies rather than battling infidels? (the Spanish Inquisition was the tip of the iceberg, really, nothing more). Ideas similar to yours but different enough could be your worst enemies; after all, they compete for similar ecological niches, biologically speaking.
Re:Problem with Open-Source (Score:3, Insightful)
Open source is actually a lot easier, at least if you see an "OSI approved" label, you have some guarantees about what you are allowed to do. And in practice, most projects use one of the GPL, LGPL, BSD/MIT-style or Apache license anyway.
Oh no! (Score:3, Insightful)
Christ. And I was worried about Iraq, gun control and third-world starvation for a moment there.
There is little competition (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:It's a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it includes "the freedom to abuse". Companies say the GPL is anti-commercial, but the free OS with the most commercial interest is GNU/Linux.
Would Sun contribute to GNOME if the GNOME license allowed IBM to take Suns work, modify it and not give back? GPL makes a level playing field, everyone has to play by the rules, and history has proved that companies prefer that situation to the BSD situation.
In an ideal world, yes we would all use the BSD license, but while were in this world, copyleft seems to be preferable.
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Hitler and Stalin believed 2+2=4. Are you like Hitler and Stalin?"
Dont like the license? ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ive heard that said so many times to people who have expressed a desire to use GPL code but dislike the GPL license. Why doesnt that apply here? It doesnt have to be GPL compatable, and if anyone dislikes that, they are free to extend the GPL compatable version, or write their own implementation.
The GPL also has "advertising clause" (Score:3, Insightful)
This applies to both source and binary distribution. While this is not a real a advertising clause it does require you to acknowledge the original author of the program. So even with the GPL you have the problem of many copyright sentences in combined programs.
Re:eh (Score:5, Insightful)
What do I do when I want to box up Debian and have to suddenly include three pages of acknowledgements on the outside of the box?
To the response "that's ridiculous; it won't get out of hand", I have to ask: why put it in the license? Is there some reason you need to use the legal force of copyright to bash this over people's heads? Can't you just rely on most people to not be credit-stealing bastards?
The only thing making this clause part of the license does is hurt people who want to be strictly correct in following license rules - but these are the same people who already are giving credit where credit is due. The people who are stealing the credit whole-hog (if, indeed, there are such people) will likely stick the acknowledgement to xfree.org so far down in the secondary appendix to the most unread manual that no one will ever find it unless they already know about xfree's license and go looking.
I have nothing wrong with acknowledging other people's work. The problem is with being forced to do it.
Re:It's a problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Trying not to bite on what might be flamebait, but the GPL does not restrict how you licence your code. It only restricts how others licence it.
Using the GPL allows me to say "here you go, use the code however you like but don't ever stop others from doing the same". If you make a change to my code then you are welcome to keep it to yourself or, more usefully, to redistribute it but you can never change the conditions under which I originally released my code. If you don't like that condition then go away and recode it yourself, duplicate the effort, and miss out on the community effort but don't think you can use my code in whatever way you want.
In my book that isn't virulent.
Re:So You Prefer Fragmentation over Cooperation (Score:3, Insightful)
You make the point that BSD v. GPL license is a *choice* by the developer. It should be a well thought-out choice based on your goals. You say:
Many of us who write code will not consider a BSD style license because we do not want our code used by freeloaders who incorporate it into non-free, proprietary products.
That's a good reason for the GPL. That's the place the GPL makes sense.
But, what if your first priority is widest possible influence? For instance, you are trying to propagate a new protocol far and wide. In that case, I believe, that you would be wise to BSD the reference implementation. Get the same code base *everywhere* to jump start the process. Somebody will happily relicense it under GPL in about 7 seconds after the first release, so a GPL version will always be around. Or release it under both yourself.
Summary: Use GPL to shake off the freeloaders, use BSD to influence the industry.
Choice of license should not be like chosing a religion. It should be like choosing what screwdriver to use -- pragmatic, based on what your end goals are.
-dbc posting as AC
Re:So You Prefer Fragmentation over Cooperation (Score:3, Insightful)
And, frankly, I can understand why some people are a little pissed of, even if I don't share their feelings. From the point of view of a developer using a BSD-style, permissive license, GPLed code is just as impossible to integrate as proprietary code is, so there already is a schism in "the community". Cooperation between GPL and BSD (or rather, copyleft and permissive) projects is effectively a one-way street.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So You Prefer Fragmentation over Cooperation (Score:3, Insightful)
Your mistake is not reading the license. The GPL says nothing about the code "being re-licensable under later versions of the GPL" it's the COPYING file in most software that says this. The linux kernel is a notable exception since it's licensed under GPL v2 and nothing else:
From the kernel 2.6.0's COPYING file:
Re:Repost (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm glad there's no "morality" clause in the GPL. Such a thing would lead to developers taking liberties with the software so licensed and arguing their case on moral grounds.
The GPL is very clear: In order for another license to be compatible, it must not place restrictions on users or developers above or beyond those of the GPL. The advertising clause does so. Regardless of how you judge it to be moral or immoral, convenient or inconvenient, additional restrictions/requirements are just that, and are not compatible with the GPL.
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:5, Insightful)
*Cough*cough*cough* The whole objective of GPL is deliberately and explicitly to prevent PROPRIETARY exploitation.
As can be read at the Free Software Foundation's site of confusing words [gnu.org] about the word commercial [gnu.org]:
By saying what you just wrote, either you prove you have a weak understanding of english, or a deliberate intention to lie.
And yes, quite more than 30 minutes, thank you.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Openssl (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:eh (Score:2, Insightful)
All differences aside, such a stance is hypocracy (Score:3, Insightful)
I, frankly, do not understand why the BSD-License zealots (which are a tiny fraction of the BSD folks) get so pissed off.
They have made a conscious choice in the working of their license to allow their code to be arbitrarilly relicensed, even with draconian, proprietary restrictions and have taken the stance that by doing so, they have maximized the freedom of the downstream (derivative) developer. Which, by definition, must also include other free software developers whose specific views a freedom differ slightly, or even a great deal, as well as those who do not believe in freedom at all (ie. proprietary developers). Then, with the next breath, the zealously anti-GPL crowd would add "but not another FREE license we happen to disagree with."
It is hypocracy in the extreme to make a claim to freedom, then with the next breath to decry those who practice freedom differently than oneself while claiming it is perfectly okay to remove that freedom completely. Thankfully, that is a form of hypocracy the vast majority of the FreeBSD folks, including the leadership, do not engage in at all (and in fact, have purposly avoided by making their license GPL compatible).
It is not a hypocracy certain BSD-License zealots have avoided at all, or those who enter the community as agent provocatuers seeking to stir up conflict where none really exists, quite probably at the behest (and paid for) by certain interests who feel threatened by free software of whatever variety.
Absolutely (Score:4, Insightful)
But, what if your first priority is widest possible influence? For instance, you are trying to propagate a new protocol far and wide. In that case, I believe, that you would be wise to BSD the reference implementation.
Absolutely! The Ogg-Vorbis folks did this very thing.
Perhaps I didn't make it as clear as I intended. Both licenses have their place, both are good, and fragmenting the community through incompatabilities because one doesn't like the GPL would be a disservice to both the GPL and *BSD communities (as both do cross-polinate one another, with ideas and code).
Dual licensing is appropriate in some cases. BSD licensing is appropriate in some cases, and GPL is apporpriate in some cases.
What isn't appropriate is to advocate allowing folks to make free software proprietary, and with the next breath decrying folks who wish to take the same software and relicense it with vastly less draconian restrictions, but nevertheless more restrictions than it had originally (i.e. the GPL).
Choice is important, and the best way to maximize people's choices is to keep our free licenses as compatible as possible, and compatability withh the GPL, as one of the two fundamental reference licenses of the free software community (FreeBSD being the other), and as the license under which a large portion of the free software in the world is licensed under, is a very important part of that.
The FreeBSD folks, much to their credit, recognized that a long time ago. Alas, some of the more zealos folks in their ranks (along with some of the more zealous folks in the GPL ranks, and certainly the numerous agents provocateurs folks like Microsoft have seeded our ranks with), will probably never recognize (or at least never admit) as much.
Re:Oh no! (Score:3, Insightful)
Any gnu software I get has the entire GPL license which inclues some of their manifesto, and a COPYING file in the distro. How is this any less obnoxious than someone asking for a sentence in the documentation somewhere? If I run gdb --version, instead of just getting the version, I get a paragraph. I didn't say gdb --copyright. Evidently if it's done by RMS, it's not obnoxious.
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, if I give the software to you, you have certain freedoms. The GPL makes sure that the people _you_ give the software then have the same freedoms that you do. This leads to an overall _increase_ in freedom when people who want to close-source and make the software propetiary.
In summary, if I give my software to you:
BSD - You have almost the same freedoms I do. People you give it to have only the freedoms you give them.
GPL - You have less freedom, but the people you give it to have the same freedoms you do.
Like many things in life, it's a tradeoff.
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:5, Insightful)
As a BSD proponent, let me try to explain. The reality is quite different from the deluge of out-of-the-arse assumptions being thrown about.
I want to use the BSD license for my own code. The reasons are numerous, but at the top of the list is because I don't want to impose any restriction upon my users. I could care less what license you use, or your friend uses, or RMS uses, or even Bill Gates uses. All I care about is the freedom to make my code as unrestrictive as possible.
Enter the GPL. If it's an application that I am merely using, I could care less. If it's code that I would like to incorporate into my own work, I cannot, so I don't. Depending on how much I want to incorporate the code, this can range from a slight annoyance to a major peeve. The GPL is a brand that says "members only". For an unrestricted OS like FreeBSD or OpenBSD, great care must be taken that no necessary components are under the GPL or "infected" by the GPL, because the OS as a whole is no longer unrestricted.
I don't think GPL developers are any different in this attitude, if they would step outside their members only club and look around. What happens when a GPL developer runs across free software code that they wish to use, only to discover that it's not GPL-compatible? Same attitude. While the BSD license is compatible with the GPL, the GPL is not compatible with the BSD license.
Why, then, should any of them get mad that other developers would include BSD code in GPL'ed programs?
We don't. Or at least I don't. This has happened to me several times in the past. It doesn't bother me. However, as the original author, I do feel some small reverse consideration is in order. If the derivative code has some fixes that I would like to incorporate into the original, I have to ask for a special exception to do so. In all cases to date, this was unhesitatingly granted by the GPL authors. One some cases they were backported without me ever having to ask. Bless them!
I would prefer that derivative works use the same license I placed on the original. But I will not demand it. I do not believe I have any moral rights to the derivative bits. I think this is the biggest difference between the GPL and BSD license.
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:1, Insightful)
But you're talking as though you have a right to include that code, which the GPL is taking away.
You don't. You don't have any right to that code. If its authors had released their program under proprietary terms, you wouldn't even be able to get a copy if you wanted to.
The GPL gives you rights you didn't otherwise have - it doesn't take away rights you would otherwise have had.
The BSD license gives you more rights, I'll grant you that. But too many BSD zealots (into which category you seem not to fall, so this is not aimed at you in particular) seem to think that the GPL is restricting their "right" to use open source code how they want to. It isn't.
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:2, Insightful)
BSD - You have almost the same freedoms I do. People you give it to have only the freedoms you give them.
GPL - You have less freedom, but the people you give it to have the same freedoms you do.
In summary, if I give my source code to you under:
GPL: you are free to do whatever you want with it if you don't distribute it, but if you distribute it, changed or not, you are restricted to distributing it under the GPL
revised BSD license (no advertising clause): you can do whatever you want to with it
We all know there's BSD code in Windows, OS X, and Linux. It's not a big secret. If we want the original code, we can find it. Code doesn't disappear just because someone decides not to release the source of their changes, and even the original developer can't make the code disappear (unless distribution of the code was non-existant in the first place).
Re:GPL popularity? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've got nothing against the GPL, its a fine license if you want your code to to be bound to a particular belief system. But it sickens me when Stallman et-al trots out the concept of 'Free-as-in-Freedom' in reference to the GPL. I'll thank them to STOP abusing the notion of Freedom in advertising their ideology, it's becoming trite.
The GPL is NOT a poster child for Freedom(with a capital F) - in its own way, it has as many restrictions as the next commercial license - its just that the obligations you agree to are philosophical, rather than monetary.
In the end, true freedom means that certain persons or entities will have the right to do things you don't believe in. At least in the USA, freedom-of-religion does not come with the caveat that the religion must be christian, nor does freedom of speech come with the caveat that the speech must be 'politically correct'.
The closest thing we have to a open-source license that is actually 'Free-as-in-Freedom' is the BSD license.
THINK FOR YOURSELF; USE COMMON SENSE (Score:1, Insightful)
The XFree86 license did NOT add an "obnoxious advertising clause".
According to the LINKED Stallman article, the "obnoxious advertising clause" is one that says that the author of the software must be ACKNOWLEDGED IN PRODUCT ADVERTISING.
Naturally, I can understand that you wouldn't want to have 100 attributions to different software authors in your magazine or televsion ADVERTISEMENT.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE NEW XFREE86 LICENSE REQUIRES!!!
The new XFree86 clause only says that XFree86 must be given acknowledgement in the product DOCUMENTATION.
There'ss a BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE, PEOPLE.
THIS ENTIRE SLASHDOT ARTICLE AND ALL THE DISCUSSION IS NEXT TO WORTHLESS SINCE NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE FUCK THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.
It seems pretty reasonable to me for a software author, especially one WHO IS NOT REQUIRING THE SOURCE OR MODIFICATIONS TO BE REDISTRIBUTED, to at least ask for acknowledgement in the product documentation!!
Just because the old BSD license required acknowledgement in product ADVERTISEMENT does not mean that the new XFree86 one does. Just because the two licenses look simiar at first glance DOES NOT MAKE THE NEW ONE GPL INCOMPATIBLE.
Read it for yourself, folks, it's VERY fucking reasonable. The XFree86 license specifically says:
The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", in the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)