Re: License furor

On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 09:46:55AM -0600, Marc Aurele La France wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 2004, Vincent Stemen wrote:
> 
> > Yes, I seem to remember seeing other comments comparing it to the
> > Apache license but, it is definitely not the same.  The Apache license
> > says,
> 
> >     3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution,
> >        if any, must include the following acknowledgment:
> >           "This product includes software developed by the
> >            Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/)."
> >        Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself,
> >        if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.
> 
> > This is basically the same as the BSD license.  The statement, "if and
> > wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear" option is
> > very similar sounding as the new XFree86 license, except, in the
> > Apache license, you have the alternative option of including it in the
> > end-user documentation without conditions of where and in what form it
> > is in.
> 
> > That "same place and form" statement in the XFree86-1.1 license is
> > what concerns us.  If you are re-distributing free software and any of
> > the thousands of X applications that contains any code from the
> > XFree86 project has a pop up attributing third party software and not
> > the XFree86 project, then no matter what acknowledgments you include
> > in the documentation with your distribution, you are violating the
> > copyright because it is not in the same form (not in the pop up
> > window).
> 
> That's an interesting interpretation, but somewhat off-base.  The 1.1 license
> places onus on redistributors, and, as one of such, you would not be the first
> in line, if at all, should you integrate an application that does not properly
> acknowledge its own sources in its popups.
> 
> That's assuming, of course, that such an application exists, and that, as Rich
> points out, XFree86 has the wherewithal to pursue you all over hell's
> half-acre.
> 
> Why do you feel the need to point out such a stretch?  This is telling in and
> of itself.  After all, the alleged GPL incompatibility was first asserted, and
> then was a self-fulfilling circular argument built to sustain that assertion.
> That this assertion is foremost a business decision seems a tough fact few are
> willing to contend with.  Frankly, I'd sooner remove all references to this
> incompatibility from our web pages and documentation.
> 
> But the saddest thing about all this brouhaha isn't that this assertion was
> ever made, nor its consequences, nor how it is supported, nor that many have
> been hood-winked into believing and promoting it, and nor even that similar
> noise isn't being made about certain other licenses in the source tree.
> 
> Instead, XFree86 seems to have ended up with the dubious distinction of being
> the only Open Software project actively resisting the greed that has become
> addicted to it.  For this "crime" we are berated.  Go figure.

Well, the real problem, is that the way XFree86 has chosen to do it was
not the wisest one, and anyway ran counter to what is currently
expected, not only by whoever this was targeted at, but the actual
developer providing contributions and the user base, especially of all
those not really aware of the problem that XFree86 is trying to counter
with this extreme mesures. And the round of GPL bashing that has
agremented this thread didn't help clarify this situation.

Friendly,

Sven Luther