Re: License furor

At 12:13 PM 5/28/2004 +0200, you wrote:
>On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 01:03:57PM -0400, William M. Quarles wrote:
> > 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.
>
>Notice that XFree86 has agreed (or did this change in the last two month ?)
>to not put any part of the x libraries, who will be linked to client
>programs, under the GPL incompatible licence. So, as long as the XFree86
>project indeed respect this, then the GPL incompatibility of the XFree86
>1.1 licence is no problem.
>
>That said, i believe this move has broken the thrust with the XFree86
>project, and that no serious linux distribution will be going with the
>XFree86 codebase, well apart from a splattering of minor distribs who
>have already chosen XFree86 4.4, and that have been touted as a PR move
>on the XFree86 web pages. I believe this whole issue was a mistake for
>the XFree86 project, and have said so vocally. It was a mistake, but a
>mistake that was theirs to make though.

don't feed the trolls.

mark.