Re: License furor

At 06:02 PM 5/24/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 03:48:13PM -0400, William M. Quarles wrote:
> > Someone respond to this man!  He's making some good discussion here.
> >
> > I don't understand what the problem is with the new license either.  In
> > comparing it to the modified BSD license, which supposedly is GPL
> > compatible, the XFree86 1.1 License looks almost exactly the same.  Why
> > is it specifically that the XFree86 1.1 License is GPL incompatible,
> > whereas the BSD license is not?
>
>Read the thread where we discussed this about a month ago near the end
>of April.  The exact problem was discussed in detail.  It looks very
>similar at first glance, but the following statement in the new
>XFree86 license makes it very different.
>
>"in the same form and location as other such third-party
>acknowledgments"
>
>I know of no other open source license that contains this condition.
>As I said before, that is a legal booby trap where no distributor of
>open source software can guarantee they are not violating the license.


i could not find one either and i have no inside track to why it was added.
maybe to be distinct ;-)  but the rest of it is pretty close to

http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE


peace and brotherhood,

mark.