Re: Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 01:24:15PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
>
> The most reasoned disagreement I've seen so far is "change is bad."

What about, ``others have tried this sort of thing and decided it was a
bad idea''?

What about, ``others (e.g., X.org) are forking the code as a result of
these changes''?

> My point all along has been that the XFree86 licensing policy has not
> changed.  If it is bad now, it was bad before.  Why wasn't anyone
> complaining before?

Because it *was* different before.  Courtesy of www.archive.org, the
page http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licence.html used to read (in part):

| The main licence we use is based on the traditional Massachusetts
| Institute of Technology (MIT) X11/X Consortium licence, often called
| the "MIT licence" or "X11 licence". The X11 licence does not impose any
| conditions on the modification or redistribution of either the source
| code or binaries other than requiring that copyright and/or licence
| notices are left intact.

Now that text reads:

| The main licence we use is derived from the traditional Massachusetts
| Institute of Technology (MIT) X11/X Consortium licence, the Berkely [sic]
| Standard [sic] Distribution (BSD) license, and the Apache 1.1 licence.
| The XFree86 Project's licence does not impose any conditions on the
| modification or redistribution of the source code or binaries other
| than requiring that copyright and/or licence notices are left intact,
| ***and that due credit is given*** [emphasis added].


Followups are being (I hope) redirected to [email protected] (there's
no reason to post this junk on devel).

--
Paul Vojta, [email protected]