Re: License issue, and a possible solution

Vincent wrote:

> Actually, I do not believe the heat is because of GPL purism.  It is
> because combining it with GPL code or creating any kind of combined
> work is a violation of the license.  Also, based on the copyright, any
> binary written for X that has internal third party credits, such as in
> a pop up window, and does not credit the XFree86 project in the same
> place, is in violation of the new license.

Not true.  Since the client libraries aren't affected, nothing changes 
for any X software.  The only thing affected is binary-only 
distributions of the X server itself.

> As a distributer of third
> party software, you take on this responsibility and are really leaving
> your pants down.  If you think a free software group/company/etc won't
> turn on you down the road and use any weapons at their disposal
> against you if they decide they do not like you for some reason, just
> re-visit the Caldera story.  This is why we have chosen to go with the
> X.org branch for our projects.

> 
> 
>>While we don't consider the license a problem (especially w/ the widely unkown 
>>fact that the client side libraries aren't affected by the change), we think 
> 
> 
> See, this is part of the problem.  It would not be widely unknown if
> it stated it in the license.  If this is their true intentions, then
> why doesn't it?  When you are signing a contract, for example, no
> matter what the other party claims their intentions to are, it is what
> it says on that piece of paper that counts.  Most of the mainstream
> software distributors see this and this is why they immediately
> branched.

Sorry, this is too clever for me to grok.  "It would not be widely known 
if it stated it in the license" ??? It is what it states in the license 
that counts, as far as I know.

> In reality the client side libraries ARE affected by the change.  That
> is why they make the statement in their license FAQ,

The client libraries would be affected by the change, if in fact they 
were changing.  Since they aren't changing, they're not affected.


>     "To avoid issues with application programs such as KDE and GNOME
>     and other X-based applications, that are licensed under the GPL,
>     the 1.1 license is not being applied to client side libraries."
> 
> If the license did not affected them, then they should be able to
> apply the license.  Hence, a quote from my earlier posting which was
> directed at the XFree86 project:
> 
>     "This is essentially saying that all distributions including
>     software under the GPL or similar license that is linked to
>     XFree86 libraries and includes XFree86 headers will be in
>     violation of the copyright, that you realize this, and that you
>     are choosing at your own discretion when and where to enforce it."

Not exactly true.  They are not chosing where to enforce the change, 
they are chosing where to enact the change.  The way it is worded above 
seems to accuse them of being hypocrites.

Otherwise, the statement is essentially (from what I understand) true. 
XFree recognizes that the GPL license is not compatible with the new 1.1 
XFree license.  To avoid affecting all programs that link against X, 
they chose where to apply the license.

> Even if David Dawes has good intentions, it is just as high of a risk
> re-distributing under a copyright that you cannot guarantee compliance
> to.
> 
> Scenario:
> 
>     Let's say the entire free software community accepted the new 1.1
>     license and it spread throughout most of the X code over a couple
>     of years.  Then a big company such as Microsoft came in and
>     offered a few million dollars to buy The XFree86 Project, Inc. and
>     they sold out.  Most people do when offered enough to retire on
>     the rest of their lives and it would be pocket change for such a
>     big company.  Do you think Microsoft would have the best interest
>     of the open software community in mind when choosing how to
>     exercise the license?  Since X is one of the most integral parts
>     of open software and bringing it to the desktop of the average
>     user, they would have the entire open source community by the
>     balls.

Ok, so what if this happens?  As all client libraries are under the 
original license, nothing would happen if Microsoft bought XFree86. 
They couldn't go and retroactively change licenses prior to the 
purchase.  So, no program that links to X libraries is affected.  The 
above looks like a lot of FUD to me.  Perhaps you can explain, point by 
point, what the danger would be - and please refer to the text in the 
actual license.

> I also find it interesting that when David Dawes was directly asked in
> one of the earlier postings for examples of where the X licenses has
> been abused or where anybody had tried to falsely claim credit for the
> code, I never saw any reply.  Please feel free to direct me to it if I
> overlooked it.  Since author accreditation was their whole excuse for
> the license change, I am in question of their true motives.

The whole point is, they'd never know.  Who knows if Hummingbird ripped 
off Xfree code.  I dunno.  Do you?

If you are questioning their motives, perhaps you can offer a suggestion 
as to what you think the "real" motives are.

Personally, I really see little need for the new license myself.  I 
don't know what happened to spark it, or why it was made.  Frankly, 
though, I can't see what all the fuss is about.  Since I'd rather see 
Xfree86 in distributions than X.org (as Xfree86 is much more stable at 
the moment), I would like to see some sort of movement on the license 
issue.  But, still, I think something else that Mr. Dawes said is 
probably true... and that is, that there were distributions 
contemplating a change before the license issue came around.  I think a 
lot of people are using the license issue as an excuse - because really, 
very very litle has changed.

	Kurt Fitzner.