Re: License issue, and a possible solution

Vincent wrote:

> The more I studied the 1.1 license, the more it appeared to me to be
> specifically designed to cause this split.  David Dawes's own comments
> also strongly suggest he is happy about it and wants to bring XFree86
> back to the old days of being used primarily by developers who
> download it directly from the XFree86 site, with little to no
> commercial influence about end user features.  However, there is a bit
> of a problem with that attitude.  Even most software engineers I know
> of run on a commercial Linux, BSD, or other Unix like distribution.

I agree.  In the "old days", I used to download X distros from XF86, and 
occasionally build them.  I haven't done this in years, though.

> Not just the end users.  Very few people actually download something
> as big as X windows and try to install it them self.  Most people, no
> matter how much of a guru they are, do not want to have to create
> their own distribution every time they install or upgrade their
> system.  I will be quite surprised if XFree86 does not quickly fade
> into the background if they stick with this new license.

This is something I think we can both agree on.  I still don't attribute 
"malice of forethought" to Mr. Dawes, or any of the XF86 board.  I'd 
still attribute it more to "lack of forethought" than anything. 
Although... the longer we go without an answer regarding the header 
files, the more it looks like you are right).  But yes, the Xfree86 
Project Inc. faces complete irrelevance if something doesn't change soon.

I'm still hoping that we might see some sort of reply from Georgina (or 
someone else of authority) on the issue of the client library header 
file licensing.  Anyone willing to step up to bat on this?  Anyone?

	Kurt.