Re: License issues

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:19:43PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:38:45PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> 
> >Well, but there is a difference. Those problematic files are rather
> >minor, and a solution can be found. While no solution can be found to
> >the clear will of the XFree86 Project to use a non-friendly licence for
> >what do i know what vengeance and slight reasons.
> 
> You seem to have cause and effect backwards.  The fact that these
> "problematic" files are in the source tree is because the policy
> allowed it, not vice versa.  What you really appear to be asking
> for is a change in policy.
>
> To satisfy my curiosity, what would that policy be?

As i understood it, but have not reread it recently, the policy has
always be to accept only licence which allow you to reuse, modify or
distribute the code without constraint, including making it proprietary.

This is not really something i agree with myself, since i believe that
if i donate code, and someone wants to make money on it without giving
anything back, he can ask me for it. But this was not the case of the
XFree86 project, and i donated my time and code accordying to that.

But now, XFree86 has decided to move to a licence which is GPL
incompatible, and i feel that this is wrong. I also don't see why we
would permit that someone did a binary-only proprietary port, but would
not allow for a GPLed version of it. Still, this is my belief, and i
find it sad, and an error in the long run for the XFree86 Project, but
hey it is your right to do that.

Now, you have made a change of licence, which does openly change the way
XFree86 can be reused in a GPL compatible way, this is different from
some obscure stale code being problematic. And despite everything i feel
and say on the subject, it is your right to do so.

But the problem is that you deny it being a problem, which i feel is
dishonest, and it hurt me specially, because i also have taken heat from
many people, and not always kind people, because i defended you on this
issue, so i expect at least that you would stand up and accept it, but
well, this i not the case, and let's see if i will now be banned from
this list as a result :/

Now, what policy i would like to see, well, the previous one is fine,
but i guess that GPL compatibility would be a must, at least on those
parts who have vocation to be linked with GPLed code. The client side
libraries at least, and you have said you will not apply the licence
change to those. the SDK is also problematic, but to a lesser amount,
and well, if someone is willing to write a driver for xfree86, then he
is welcome to do it in a licence xfree86 can also use.

So, all in all, a stronger and official commitment that the client side
libraries will not be GPL incompatible in the future would be a good
addition to the policy.

But what you did is a change, a change that is problematic, and there is
really no reason why you should deny it.

Friendly,

Sven Luther