Re: License issues

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:56:59AM -0500, mark kandianis wrote:
> At 04:53 PM 3/10/2004 +0100, you wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:36:09AM -0500, mark kandianis wrote:
> >> At 09:38 PM 3/9/2004 +0100, you wrote:
> >> >On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:55:05AM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:16:37PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >And now, you are openly lying to us, trying to say that there is no
> >> >> >change, that this licence has always been the XFree86 licence, which 
> >is
> >> >> >clearly false, and contrary to what everyone has been lead to believe
> >> >>
> >> >> I think you need to read what is written, rather than overreacting
> >> >> to everything.
> >> >
> >> >Maybe i am overreacting, but i think that the claims that everything is
> >> >fine, and has ever been such is still a lie. The licence change is not a
> >> >good move, and it will only cause problems in the long run. Still it is
> >> >your right to do so, but trying to deny that the practice did actually
> >> >change is just cowardly hiding from your responsabilities in this issue.
> >> >
> >> >You well know that i have always been on your side on this and past
> >> >issues, so, please let's at least be honest among ourselves.
> >> >
> >> >> The licensing *policy* has not changed.  XFree86 has exercised the
> >> >> same freedom of licensing choice that it has been offering its
> >> >> contributors for some time.  This is no secret, since there have
> >> >> been MIT/X11 and GPL-incompatible licences published in our
> >> >> LICENCE/COPYRIGHT docs for many years.  If people don't actually
> >> >> go and read those details, then what does that say about the
> >> >> importance they give to the licences?
> >> >
> >> >Well, but there is a difference. Those problematic files are rather
> >> >minor, and a solution can be found.
> >>
> >>
> >> big big change.  how cum?  why do you say that?  based on what
> >> o troll master?
> >
> >Based on the licence audit Branden did. I don't remember all of it, and
> >GLX is indeed problematic,
> 
> so is debian fixing that?  and removing it from the foundation code base
> before it ships it?  and why didn't debian notice this before?  asleep at 
> the wheel?

Mark, why are you taking this agressive tone. Yes, it will be fixed in
debian, and Branden has been looking over these issues, altough in the
X.org framework. But you have to know that i am not on nice speaking
basis with Branden.

> hard to believe that this is a real guardian of freedom who can so easily
> be led astray.  i imagine he/you/it will come up with the angle that cuz you
> always shipped it it's okay.  good one there.  i care but just so much.
> a lot of hypocrisy there.

Please look at the thread on debian-vote about the debian/non-free
issue, and speak to me again once you did. Carefull though, they should
contain over a 1000 mails, i think.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
> 
> > but many of the other problems where 4-clause
> >BSD licences dating from a long time, and which Berkley has since then
> >asked everyone to change to the 3-clause licence, or code that was not
> >really used anymore (like the font compress related stuff).
> 
> 
> 
> i think that this is another bogus issue you are bringing up.  you
> seem to skirt real issues and bring up your own agenda, which
> obviously is very self-serving.  but that's what trolls do isn't it?
> 
> 
> mark.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Forum mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum