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)
Re:eh (Score:3, Interesting)
For the Open Source community to succeed we can not forget the hard work put in by those who came before us.
Re:eh (Score:5, Funny)
Shouldn't you use question marks after interrogative sentences. Or are they not used anymore.
Re:eh (Score:5, Funny)
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:eh (Score:5, Informative)
Re:eh (Score:2)
And after all that, you really can't force someone to give you the credit you deserve anyway, they will only give credit if the want to. Windows gives "credit" to the BSD network stack (among other things) that they incorporate in Windows, but it
Re:eh (Score:5, Funny)
If your open source project manager requires you to bleed, sweat, and cry, then you might want to consider forking...
GPL popularity? (Score:2, Interesting)
XFree86 is using a different license, as is Apache... will this put off others using the GPL, and encourage them to use a license of their own creation that best suits their needs?
Re:GPL popularity? (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
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 the
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.
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, this issue brings up some schisms between the GPL and BSD communities. However, I find the attitude of the BSD proponents on this subject somewhat strange. By choosing the BSD license, you are giving people the right to do whatever they want with their work. This means that company could take your code and include it in a proprietory app, without releasing improvements back to the community. By their decision to license under BSD, developers indicate that they are okay with this. Why, then, should any of them get mad that other developers would include BSD code in GPL'ed programs? Is GPL worse than propietory???
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:2)
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:2)
well, libraries usually realeased under the lgpl [gnu.org] - which is designed to be less viral than the gpl. give the lgpl a read. it's a Good Thing for libraries.
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
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 clos
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually this is not really the case if you take GPL seriously. GPL is like a prion, anything it touches is meant to turn into itself. The whole objective of GPL is deliberately and explicitly to prevent commercial exploitation. If you think differently then you have never met RMS in person and listened to him for more than 30 minutes.
I used to share an office building with RMS. I think the only person who really takes RMS and the GPL seriously is Bill Gates. Bill does believe in IP rights and so he takes the GPL as RMS intends it to be read, not as most people read it.
Take the linked screed on the 'advertisement' clause. Not having an advertisement clause is the single biggest mistake we made with the Web. If libwww had had an advertisement clause Marc Andressen and NCSA could not have plagarised the work in the way they did, they would have had to tell people that the majority of the code in Mosaic had been written at CERN. With no advertisement clause there was no requirement to tell anyone about CERN and so until about 1995 almost every press report on the Web either did not mention Tim Berners-Lee and CERN at all or did so as an afterthought.
Meanwhile Marc Andressen created a huge PR machine at Netscape dedicated to promoting Marc as the lone inventor of the Web. The fact that Eric Bina not Marc really wrote Mosaic was also rewritten. Netscape even sponsored a book to promote this revisionist history - see Architects of the Web, not only is there no chapter on Tim, the only time he is mentioned is to attack him with lies.
So no, do not take RMS's advice he has only a slight connection with reality. RMS believes in a version of anti-corporativist activism that is considered fringe by the type of people who still believe that there is no difference between Al Gore and George Bush, and plan to vote for Ralph Nader in November.
So no, not being GPL compatible is not a bug, it is something very positive that should be applauded.
As for RMS's rant on the advertising clause, it would be very easy to write a C macro and some perl scripts that compile the relevant notice section automatically. BSD does not tell every user what it is the product of Berkley every time they start a shell script. If it writes anything to the console during boot well who reads that anyway? All you need is a single one line command to print out the list of contributors. Call it credits or something.
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Hitler and Stalin believed 2+2=4. Are you like Hitler and Stalin?"
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
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, you fail to explain how the advertising clause would help you, if by your own interpretation it amounts to credits spewed by a command-line switch or in the about box. (The fine print of a commercial or add could have contained all the "CERN wrote part of this shite" disclaimers you want, wouldnt have mattered a bit )
Secondly, you fail to explain how the GPL would not have accomplished what you sought, when in fact it is the only license that would have done so. An open code base would have certainly prevented mozilla from becoming netscape to start with.
Thirdly, you blindly champion incompatibility with the premier technology of the open source movement (Free software), with no reason why except that it is some form of "prion". So the best you can come up with is that you get mad cow disease from the GPL.
You chose the commercializable BSD, so you got commercialized, I cannot imagine why that should be a shock.
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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 no
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.
Openssl (Score:5, Interesting)
The author of that license seems to hold a deep grudge against the GPL, and specifically coded his license to make it incompatible (explicitly!!).
Anecdotally, it actually seems very common for BSD advocates to hate on the GPL. GPL users have no problem incorporating most BSD stuff with compatible licenses, because the product is GPL'd its not going to bother them.
The BSD crowd dont seem to be afraid that proprietary interests will advance the code such that the free version atrophies, but they do seem concerned that a rebadged GPL version could do just that: become the new "official" version. That would preclude any more commercial forking they had planned.
Personally, I thought the commercial fork pipe-dream was last used successfully by bill joy. I dont know why it still has so many adherents- proprietary is clearly not the wave of the future.
Re: Openssl (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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!")
Re:So You Prefer Fragmentation over Cooperation (Score:2)
I have nothing against co-operation, nothing at all. However it often seems that "co-operation" is in fact just complying the the GPL.
The most obvious method of this is that everyone always discusses being "GPL-compatable". I always considered compatability as a 2-way street.
While I'm here and people may be reading my message, I'll take the opportunity to ask a question I've been wondering about for a while
The GPL
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: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 influen
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:So You Prefer Fragmentation over Cooperation (Score:3, Insightful)
While I (consiously) use only GPL-compatible licenses myself, I am a firm believer in the impor
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
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:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:2)
Ripping something from OSNews doesn't make it right.
I don't think it's like that at all. Debian would (by their own rules) not distribute XFree86 at all. Having no windowsing system would be a much bigger problem than your missing driver. Boo hoo for Debian. If they chose to distribute an old version of XFree, you could always write your driver for it.
The XFree86 License changing slightly has nothing to do with protecting your driver code. If you released your driver under the OLD XFree86 license,
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:2)
And Debian ships a lot of code under non-GPL-compatible licenses. They even distribute non-free code (which is something very different).
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:2)
I'm serious... how could you tell? It is, after all, binary.
If they were stupid enough to do a straight copy and paste, you might find some strings that are similar. But, those obvious things can be changed.
So... while it would not be legal, it is doable.
Your choice of license does not change that... and releasing the code actually increases the chance of it happening.
I personally see this to be one of
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:4, Funny)
I propose that this system be run by SCO.
Re:Why shouldn't it be? (Score:2)
Contributed code (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Contributed code (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Contributed code (Score:2)
Re:Contributed code (Score:4, Informative)
The previous license explicitly allowed sublicensing, and the XFree86 Project is doing exactly that.
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.
Re:Not advertising.... (Score:5, Funny)
wouldn't an X client have to request to the X server to be shot in the foot, wait a while for a gun to be rendered on the local display then be shot in the foot?
Re:Not advertising.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not advertising.... (Score:2)
I seriously doubth that the XFree89 folks are as stupid as you are making them out to be.
Decisions like this aren't just pulled out of thin air. I'm sure that they put some research into and that they believe it is the best decision for the project.
Re:Not advertising.... (Score:2)
However, the requirement of mentioning the origins of your code along with other credits (note that it allows putting the credit in other places than the documentation as well) seems very reasonable.
As far as GPL-compatibility is concerned, the new license might still be compatible. At any rate, it shouldn't be a big iss
Why this is a problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, why's this a problem? The XFree project doesn't include GPLed code itself, so there are no concerns from that point of view. However, if any of the code in the X libraries falls under this new license, then the FSF's interpretation of the GPL means that you wouldn't be able to link any GPLed program against the X libraries and distribute it. That's fairly bad.
On the plus side, the freedesktop.org x libraries were branched from XFree before the license change - as a result, we can pretty much guarantee that there will be libraries available that can be used with GPLed code. The end result would probably be to reduce the amount of XFree code in a distribution, rather than to increase the credit that the XFree project wants. It's almost certainly a counter-productive move.
Re: Why this is a problem (Score:2)
> The end result would probably be to reduce the amount of XFree code in a distribution, rather than to increase the credit that the XFree project wants. It's almost certainly a counter-productive move.
Didn't they already cave in on another license issue several years ago, since the primary effect would have been to isolate themselves?
Re: Why this is a problem (Score:2)
How can they cave when they're just pointing out incompatabilities in the licenses?
QT was a connundrum, it might be what you were thinking of, but there were a lot of license changes, eventually they became compatible.
(Re: Homer and Krusty. Matt Groening mentions it in the commentary track on one of the Simpson's DVD's... I think the second season. He said something along the lines that originally Homer was going to be Krusty, to work the angle of "a kid's hero turns out to be his father", but he dump
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.
License copy - site slow already (Score:3, Offtopic)
Copyright (C) 1994-2004 The XFree86 Project, Inc.
All rights reserved.
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of The XFree86 Project, Inc shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from The XFree86 Project, Inc.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE XFREE86 PROJECT, INC OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
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.)
Couldn't someone have mentioned that ... (Score:5, Funny)
I love the translation of the first comment: (Score:5, Funny)
If I had a quarter for every time I said that, I'd ...I'd ...I wouldn't have any quarters. And I still have laundry to do.
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.
Re:Not a BSD-style clause. (Score:2, Funny)
Whhheww... All of my projects are already compliant!
Over the long term it is just as unworkable (Score:3, Interesting)
You are right, it isn't as immediately bad as the original BSD clause, but it does appear nevertheless to be incompatible with the GPL, and therefor with a huge volume of free and open source software development
Wird XFree86 GPL inkompatibel? (Score:5, Funny)
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:Advertising clause (Score:2)
XFree86 contributors
are also encouraged to review the license change, and let us know if
they wish to make similar changes to licenses in their name
so they are already planning to add extra lines.
And this is only for one program. how many of those lines can fit in the end-users documentation before it becomes annoying.
I wonder... (Score:2)
That is, if every file has a mandatory 75-line list of copyrights, would it be harder to accuse it of being stolen?
Now in reality, the Linux kernel source code has a fair bit of copyright information plastered all over the headers, so in practice the litigious bastards [sco.com] such as those I alluded to above wouldn't pay any attention to details like that. But different
Problem with Open-Source (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Problem with Open-Source (Score:2)
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.
Proprietary License? (Score:5, Funny)
If they go with a more proprietary license, they should probably also change their name to Ex-Free86. :P
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,
Why is this GPL incompatible? (Score:5, Interesting)
Can somebody explain why this new 1.1 license is necessarily incompatible with GPL2 / LGPL [fsf.org]? True, it is an annoying licence change as the FSF article explains, and may not be a smart move for the project. But annoying doesn't make it incompatible. And no one even said (that I can determine) that original flawed BSD license was in fact incompatible; just undesirable.
In fact, this seems to be less restrictive than the GNU FDL [fsf.org] license for documentation. It's not the same as past famous GPL-incompatible licenses, such as an old version of the Python license.
Re:Why is this GPL incompatible? (Score:2)
So if you want to combine some GPL code from one project with the X source unedr this (stupid) new license, and distribute a derived work of the two you will be afoul of both copyrights and the owner of either could insist you cease distribution.
Re:Why is this GPL incompatible? (Score:2)
XFree is not a derived work of GPL'd code. Now, if you create a derived work from XFree, you (the redistributor or creator) are not adding any restrictions. The restrictions were already there. And regardless, its *still* not a derived work of GPL'd code. As I read it, this clause prevents you from taking, say, Emacs, and adding your own clause that says 'everyone who uses this source must
Re:Why is this GPL incompatible? (Score:2)
Re:Why is this GPL incompatible? (Score:2)
That would mean it wasn't a problem for widget libraries like GTK or Qt, or for application writers, unless (possibly) they're using some weird XFree-only extension.
So this sounds like it's just an internal matter for the XFree team w
Maybe GPL v3 Can Support "Advertising Clauses"... (Score:5, Interesting)
That being said, one would hope that the continued work on the next generation of GPL will consider whether or not "advertising clauses" will really result in GPL incompatibility. The mission of the FSF and the GPL is to make sure that the code can be freely used and reused. It's unclear how requiring positive attribution would interfere with that. Aren't there options for that sort of thing in FSF's Free Documentation License?
Admittedly, it's a slippery slope -- imagine a license with a clause requiring binaries be accompanied by a message advocating a particular political position. Or a particular sexual position, for that matter...
Seen on the mailing list (Score:5, Funny)
XFree86: We are altering the license. Pray we don't alter it any further.
Oh no! (Score:3, Insightful)
Christ. And I was worried about Iraq, gun control and third-world starvation for a moment there.
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
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)
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.
GPL incompatibility not a problem (Score:2)
Mod parent up please (Score:3, Interesting)
Repost (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see any moral difference between RMS insisting that you call the operating system "GNU/Linux" and the XFree86 people insisting they get credit for their work. (Technically I see a difference, as there's nothing forcing you to call it GNU/Linux. But morally it's the same thing.)
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:yep... (Score:3, Informative)
No, IMHO it doesn't. The problem with the old BSD advertising clause was that you had to mention the original author in "all advertising materials". The new XFree license requires you to include the acknowledgement in documentation or "in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments", for example a README or CREDITS file.
This seems to be a big difference in practice - even hundreds of such lines in the docs would be manageable, while
Re:yep... (Score:2)
And the acknowledgement is extrordinary pointless as you're not allowed to remove copyright notices _anyway_.
Re:Major Problems... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmm...do I smell Xouvert? [xouvert.org] or perhaps freedesktop [freedesktop.org] ?
Regards,
Steve
Re:English links (Score:2)
http://babelfish.altavista.com/ [altavista.com]
Re:English links (Score:2)
*Actually they'll probably use Babelfish or Google's translation service to figure it out, if they're truly interested.
Re:no probs (Score:2)
'The purpose of these changes is to strengthen the "except claim you wrote it" clause'
Brilliant. Except, of course, copyright law already _does_ this. Slap a copyright notice on it and it would be illegal to remove it. If they want a notice in the documentation, just slap another copyright notice in there. The clauses are completely pointless and handle a non-problem in a possibly damaging way. And the use of
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: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 th
Re:Pointless (Score:2)