Re: License issue, and a possible solution

Vincent wrote:

> Assuming good intentions, I really don't see what they are trying to
> accomplish.  X is a big package.  If the intentions are good, is it
> really worth all this effort just to have better author attribution
> where it comes to applications that past code from the core server?
> I doubt it.

Think of it this way.  Would people be paying as much for products like 
Hummingbird or other commercial X servers if those companies had to 
acknowledge that they stripped much of their code from XFree86?  This 
kind of license (the 1.1 license that they are switching to) represents 
a sort of middle ground between BSD and GPL.  In GPL, commercial 
companies wouldn't be able to use the code at all.  With BSD (and the 
similar 1.0 XFree license), commercial companies can use the code, and 
hide teh fact to their customers.  They can make all sorts of claims 
about their technical superiority and wonderful features, and hide the 
fact that they are based on the same code all the free software users 
are using.

That being said, I freely admit the above reasoning is pure conjecture 
on my part (though looking at X.Org's web site gives some evidence for 
it - see bottom) and also partly a "devil's advocate" type position.  I 
don't know what the discusions were that sparked the change, and I have 
to admit, XFree86 is going through a lot of pain over this.  Quite 
frankly, I see them facing a fairly significant risk of irrelevance in 
the not-too-distant future.  I guess they are the only ones that can 
decide whether or not it's worth it.  I just hope that clear heads 
prevail.

> That is why I have a hard time believing it will be
> limited to the core sever code.  And judging by the list if files
> above, it appears that it isn't.
> 
> So, changing the license back on the headers and other non-server
> specific code would lessen our risk in the short run, but having this
> new license on any part of the project puts us at too much risk in the
> long run.  We cannot stake our business on their responsibility to not
> apply the new license in files that get over looked by us and authors
> of third party applications.  

It depends on the commitment on the part of XFree86 to keep the client 
under the original license.  If they released the client (libs, headers, 
et al) under a blanket 1.0 license, it would solve a lot of those fears. 
  People wouldn't have to be checking the license on individual headers 
all the time.

> Basicly, I do not see any complete solution other than switching the
> top level license back to the original and not allowing any of the
> files to fall under a license that is incompatible with the GPL or
> similar licenses.

I have a niggling suspicion that perhaps GPL-compatibility has little to 
do with the issue.  Call me a "conspiracy theorist", but look at the 
names associated with X.ORG in big letters on the home page...
Hummingbird, WRQ, IBM, HP, Sun.  The first two are companies that 
produce their own commercial X servers.  The last 3 are large commercial 
UNIX vendors.  All organizations who might want to produce their own X 
server and not have to put "Uses code from the XFree86 Project" in their 
product.  I think Hummingbird and WRQ are very telling names associated 
with this project.  It's also telling that Slackware, which is the least 
commercial of the major distributions, is still staying with XFree86.  I 
wonder if commericialism, much more than open software principals, is 
what is driving the mass migration to X.Org.

Something to think about, at least.