(no subject)
"umberto" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.xfree86.forum |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
ven, I have been forwarding industry-significant mssages from the Forum list to the xorg_foundation list because i knew that many xorg list recipients were not monitoring the Forum list. David Dawes is aware of this. I have also informed rms. Leon On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:42:57 +0100 Sven Luther wrote:> To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]> Subject: Re: FWD from XFree86 forum: GPL-incompatible license> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 05:00:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 01:10:04PM -0500, Leon Shiman wrote:>> > ------------- Begin Forwarded Message ------------->> > From: David Dawes <[email protected]>>> > To: Richard Stallman <[email protected]>>> > Cc: [email protected]>> > Subject: Re: [forum] GPL-incompatible license>> [...]>> & gt; Basically, XFree86 licensing policy has always been to allow licences>> > that satisfy both of these extremely important requirements:>> > >> > 1. Be an Open Source licence. >> > 2. Not require that source code be made available for binary-only>> > distributions of derivative works.>> > >> > The general preference has been for licences like the BSD and MIT>> > licences. By BSD, I mean the original BSD licence in common use when>> > XFree86 began. Historically, GPL compatibility has not been an issue>> > one way or the other regarding XFree86's licensing policy and so to make>> > it an issue now would represent a very real change in our licensing>> > policy.>> >> For the Debian Project, I recently did some investigation of the claim>> that the 4-clause BSD license, which I think is what David is referring>> to (since the Regents dropped the advertising clause in 1998, and I>> XFree86 was founded years prior), is preferentially used in the XFree86>> code base.>> & gt;> That license is indeed used, but an MIT-style copyright is used on more>> code in XFree86 copyrighted by the Regents than the 4-clause BSD license>> is, despite the latter being the representation of the Regents'>> copyright license in XFree86's LICENSE file.>> >> The messy truth is that there is code copyrighted by the Regents in>> XFree86 under *several* similar but distinct licenses. Some with an>> advertising clause, some without. Some GPL-compatible, some not.>> >> My findings follow. Please feel free to ignore the references to>> DFSG-freeness, which is a concern primarily for the Debian project, and>> my footnote discussion of unpacking a Debian source package.>> >> If this next part bores you, skip to the end for my conclusions.> > Branden,> > Again, you do great job in follo wing the licence stuff, and> felicitations to you and to the rest of the X strike force for the soon> to be upcoming 4.3.0-1 package.> > I have an interogation about the aim of this mail though. You are> clearly following up on a mail from [email protected], but in this> response you don't CC them. Is this willed from your part, as a way to> discuss this issue without XFree86 and then inform them about this ? Or> maybe it was only a mistake from your part and you forgot them in your> CC list ? Or maybe some other reason ? Could you please clarify your> position on this point, and eventually forward this list to the> [email protected] mailing list too ? > > Friendly,> > Sven Luther Hello, I am not a member of the xorg foundation list but I have found much there interesting. I have been readingfrom the website. I heartily agree with Sven and will gladly repay the favor and cross-post to help thisimportant discussion along. Best RegardsUmberto> _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!