Re: License furor

Marc Aurele La France wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 2004, Vincent Stemen wrote:
>>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.

I'm a defender of XFree86 in this situation, and unfortunately I'm going 
to agree with Rich and Vincent on this one: even if XFree86 would never 
pursue such a case, it is a trap that they would not want to risk, and 
distributors would do their best to comply with the license and avoid 
the trap (such as in the popups example), or not use XFree86 and avoid 
the trap (such as in the reality that most distributors have left 
XFree86 behind).  Clause 3 is too strict and needs to be loosened (to 
remove the trap) or removed altogether (to bring back GPL compatibility).

I've contacted the Free Software Foundation, and they have a lawyer who 
is very familiar with open-source software and uses it himself.  I'm 
sure they've already consulted him on the XFree86 1.1 License and its 
GPL (in)compatibility.  I'll check on that, though.  However, Clause 3 
is an additional restriction not found in the GPL, just as the similar 
clause in the Apache license is, therefore (as most are claiming) it 
can't be GPL compatible.

As for removing all references to GPL (in)compatibility, it is still 
important for the web pages to point out that the client-side libraries 
are still under the 1.0 License.

> 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.

You're right about the other licenses on the source tree.  Is there any 
way that we could contact the authors who wrote code under the original 
BSD license and get the code relicensed?

> 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.
> 
> And to those who now believe XFree86 to have become irrelevant:  what
> conveniently short memories!  XFree86 was there when the business concerns that
> now divide the X world decided to drop the ball, and it will be there again.

Right on, brother.

> The current situation is but one phase of a never-ending cycle.  The difference
> this time is that XFree86 isn't as willing to disappear as MIT's involvement
> was.
> 
> Please take your FUD show elsewhere.
> 
> Now, where was I?  Oh yeah.  I was coding...

I wish that I could program this kind of stuff.

Peace,
William