Re: License issues

At 06:37 PM 3/8/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 06:21:16PM -0600, Ryan Underwood wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 02:14:27AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There was nothing changed.  It was a clarification of existing policy.
> > >
> > > Sorry, but this is simply not true.
> >
> > What has changed?  If you were using the X server in a GPL project, you
> > were already violating the GPL.  Making the license that applied to
>
>But unknowingly so. We were lead to believe that the advertizing clause
>had been droped from that part of the code which was covered by the BSD
>licence.
>
> > parts of the X server apply to the whole of it has changed nothing.
>
>This licence has never before applied to parts of the X server.
>
> > > The concerns are about xlibs and the other client side libraries. As i
> > > understand, apart from the licence faq mention, XFree86 has not made a
> > > definitive commitment to not change this in the future, and this creates
> > > some concern. This may be comming after a future meating of the XFree86
> > > deciding comitee or whatever though.
> >
> > It doesn't matter if they haven't committed to not change the license in
> > the future.  We can argue theoretical cases all day long (What if
> > XFree86 was bought by MICROSOFT??!?!?) but what good does this really do
> > anyone?  Right now, the xlibs issue is moot, as it has always been.
> > When the evil David Dawes and his cronies concoct some plan to take over
> > the world and change the xlibs license to something GPL-incompatible
> > later, that would be the time to be concerned about it.  By that time,
> > maybe the GPL is revised, or dynamic linking has precedent in court to
> > not cause a work to be a derived work.  Who knows?
>
>What are you speaking like that to me ? I am taking enough heat already
>from trying to defend the new licence in the outside world without
>needing to get such BS from you.


i can't see why you would be taking "heat" since you are not supporting
this license.  perhaps you should clarify this comment, as i can't see
how that could be true.  what could somebody possible be angry at?
i think you've made your positions very very clear.


mark.