kongit Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 I just installed 4.4 earlier this morning. I must say that it is better than the earlier versions for several reasons. 1) it installed in 15 minutes. They have binary files and give you a way to check which one you need. If you can use one, use it. I could and compared to a 2 hour install of the last this is great. 2) works perfectly with my video card. I have a mobility radeon 7500. It took me half of forever to get it to work at all with the 4.3. I finally got it working but not that well. This time I didn't have to do anything to get it to work, and it works great. 3) the font server is stunning. The fonts are about the best I have seen. Far better than windows, 4) fluxbox still works with it. yeah not much, but I have fully switched to flux, and its all good. I suggest if you have an idea of what you are doing to install it. If you can use the binaries provided it is quick, painless, and very much worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kemical Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 unfortunately the licensing issues with them won't let mainstream distros upgrade to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kongit Posted March 1, 2004 Author Share Posted March 1, 2004 However, our license allows binary-only redistributions, To avoid new issues with application programs that may be licensed under the GPL, the 1.1 licence is not being applied to client side libraries. I still think it can, just not like before. As I said before the binaries provided work very nice. I think distributions can use these binaries. The distros will just have to change to accept them. I think this is what made the xfree people mad. the distros were modifying the source to get it to work with their distro. now the distros will have to modify their source to get it to work with the binaries. Of course I may be mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrA Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Yay, it's released. I was running 4.4 RC1, then RC2 and was gonna migrate to RC3, but final it is. @ kongit: what version of fluxbox are you running and what version of the GCC compiler? I'm using gcc 3.4 and can't get fluxbox to compile. I've also tried on a solaris box with gcc 3.2.1 and it still won't compile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kongit Posted March 1, 2004 Author Share Posted March 1, 2004 I am using .9.8 :D it is the development version, but it is very stable for me. I also couldn't get it to compile. I run slackware and I found a package for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pHuzi0n Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 I still think it can, just not like before. As I said before the binaries provided work very nice. I think distributions can use these binaries. The distros will just have to change to accept them. I think this is what made the xfree people mad. the distros were modifying the source to get it to work with their distro. now the distros will have to modify their source to get it to work with the binaries. Of course I may be mistaken. You are very mistaken. The new license is a BSD style licence that is incompatible with the GPL. What it all comes down to is that in order for the distro to remain GPL compatible, it can only be using code that's license is compatible with the GPL too. It would actually be illegal for any linux distro to include XFree86 4.4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kongit Posted March 1, 2004 Author Share Posted March 1, 2004 Version 1.1 of XFree86 Project Licence. Copyright © 1994-2004 The XFree86 Project, Inc. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicence, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution, and in the same place and form as other copyright, license and disclaimer information. 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", in the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments. 4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of The XFree86 Project, Inc shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from The XFree86 Project, Inc. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE XFREE86 PROJECT, INC OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. The FAQ about the XFree86 1.1 licence. While the XFree86 1.1 license uses some language from the original 1.0 license, together with some language from the Apache 1.1 license. It also has additional modifications that are solely intended to clarify the intent. These modifications though, still seem to be unclear and vague to many in the XFree86 community and it is the purpose of this FAQ to dispel that uncertainity. If after reading this, you still have some questions, please use our open forum to search for discussions or post (forum@XFree86.org) other questsions so that they can also be discussed. What is the difference between 1.0 and 1.1? The first difference is that both the source code and the binary redistribution are now explicitly addressed, because the original 1.0 license failed to clarify what it meant when it referred to "the Software". Traditionally, "software" in the free software world meant "source code". However, our license allows binary-only redistributions, and there is no provision under the 1.0 license that specifically covers our licence notices reproduction in those cases. The second difference is that the new license, unike the old one, explicitly requires that the copyright holders and its contributors be acknowledged in the end user documentation which accompanies redistribution, in the software binaries itself. What is "third party software"? This is a legal term to describe the various 'parties' involved in the transaction. The distributor of software is the first party; the person to whom you are distributing to is the second party and others whose work you are distributing are the third parties. The shorthand for this mumbo jumbo is simply "Third Party Software." To demonstate an example, if you receive XFree86 from any place other than from an XFree86.org site or one of its mirrors, you are receiving XFree86 as third party software. What does "same form and place as other third-party acknowledgements" mean? This is the thorny issue that comes up repeatedly on the forum list and probably is the most misunderstood. This clause means that if a distributor of software or packages already includes acknowledgements for other third-party software contributions in its end-user documentation, then the XFree86 acknowledgement must also be made in a likewise manner. Alternatively, if a derived work carries an acknowledgement of third-party software contributions within the software itself, such as a banner message, splash screen, about box, etc, then the XFree86 acknowledgement must be made similiarly. What if there are no other acknowledgements of third party software? In that rare case, where there is no other form of acknowledgements for other third-party software contributions in either the end-user documentation or in the software itself, then an explicit XFree86 acknowlegement is not required. All that is required is that the copyright and license accompany binary redistributions as stated in clause 2 of the licence. Are you demanding credit everywhere? No. Acknowledgements or credits for other, non-software contributions, are not a factor all. A good example is, if you credit the artwork on a CDROM booklet, you are NOT required to place an XFree86 acknowledgement in that same place because even if you consider the CDROM booklet part of the end-user documentation, artwork credit is not a third-party software acknowledgement. What about if there are multiple forms of end-user documentation? In this instance, when there are multiple forms or pieces of end-user documentation which contain acknowledgements for third-party software contributions, then our requirement is satisfied by including the XFree86 acknowledgement in the most appropriate piece. What about GPL-compatibility? The 1.1 license is not GPL-compatible. To avoid new issues with application programs that may be licensed under the GPL, the 1.1 licence is not being applied to client side libraries. And most importantly, are you still free? Absolutely. Always have been, always will be. We consider this the foundation of who we are, and so we put it in our name ;-) specifically: What about GPL-compatibility?The 1.1 license is not GPL-compatible. To avoid new issues with application programs that may be licensed under the GPL, the 1.1 licence is not being applied to client side libraries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bladerunner81 Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 running 4.3.99.16 (old style license) and will definitly NOT upgrade to 4.4 until the license-issue is solved. followed some big threads on forums.gentoo.org discussing the issue, and i for my part am determined to wait for freedesktop.org's x11-implementation under gpl. as there are no improvements for me in the new x version, i have no need to upgrade to something that is short before breaking apart. also the new license is a big problem for new open-source video drivers as they don't link to the client side but have to interact with the server. you my find this interesting: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=137607 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kongit Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 I suggest you read it again. It really isn't an issue of licensing, it is more of my dick is bigger than yours arguing. Also read the faq I posted above. Besides the client side libraries being exempt much of the drivers and other parts are too. the license only applies to code copyright to xfree86. much of the code isn't. However I would like to see either xfree die and a new better x pop up or xfree86 get out of its slump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MG-Cloud Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 You mentioned that the font server is improved - what's the difference between 4.4 and 4.3? 4.3's do look quite nice already :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kongit Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 kind of hard to explain. the anti-aliasing looks better, and I think the sub-pixel rendering has been refined. In my opinion in 4.3 the fonts looked almost as good as the ones in windows, while in 4.4 they look a little better. It is probably a matter of preference. Bitstream vera sans looks awesome. as for the technical differences I am not sure but I know that the font server was one of the things worked on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted March 2, 2004 Veteran Share Posted March 2, 2004 Xfree86 turns 4.4.0 Redhat and Mandrake refuse to attend the party By Fernando Cassia: Tuesday 02 March 2004, 10:24 http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14454 I don't want to get into the dirty details but the main change is that it "explicitly requires that the copyright holders and its contributors be acknowledged in the end user documentation which accompanies redistribution, and in the software binaries itself". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kemical Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 I suggest you read it again. It really isn't an issue of licensing, it is more of my dick is bigger than yours arguing. Also read the faq I posted above. Besides the client side libraries being exempt much of the drivers and other parts are too. the license only applies to code copyright to xfree86. much of the code isn't.However I would like to see either xfree die and a new better x pop up or xfree86 get out of its slump. ive got a tiny weewee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornett Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 How is the speed of 4.4? I hope there is an improvement over 4.3 :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pHuzi0n Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 I suggest you read it again. It really isn't an issue of licensing, it is more of my dick is bigger than yours arguing. Also read the faq I posted above. Besides the client side libraries being exempt much of the drivers and other parts are too. the license only applies to code copyright to xfree86. much of the code isn't. So basicly you're expecting the distro makers to wade through all the source to check whether anything uses the new license and then leave out those files. It's just more trouble than it's worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxdesmus Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 just downloaded mandrake 10.0 rc1 and it only has 4.3...apparently there 4.4 was included and then taken out of rc1 :blink: ...weird, anyways i will have to upgrade to 4.4 as soon as i install ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kongit Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 I think that there is a bunch of false rumors circulating about this issue. I am not going to discuss it after this post because I no longer know exactly what the issue is. Mostly I read comments from people who heard the comment from someone else and so on. I haven't heard or read squat from the horses mouth, just by word of mouth. This leads me to believe that many of the reasons circulating are false or merely speculation. I ask myself why would xfree86 change their license as such. From many peoples arguements on the subject, doing so was completely illogical and senseless. However, I believe that there had to be some form of logic behind it. Xfree86 would slowly die and dissappear without the support of the distros, therefore I think there is a reason and a method for this to be resolved...at least in the minds of xfree86. Also changing a license is a big thing, and I am sure it was talked about and discussed before doing. I have heard from exterior sources that many of the core members of xfree did not like this and left and maybe plan to fork a version of xfree not affected by the license. I beleive that this whole issue will be worked out in some form. whether the gpl changes, the xfree license changes, the distros make changes, or a new and better x-server appears I am sure that we will still have our linux desktops. lastly: I suggest that you upgrade as it is easy and fast. I have noticed speed improvements, the fonts look better, and my video card is better supported. While not much it is enough for a 15 to 30 minute operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danrarbc Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 This brings up my one problem with the Linux community in general. Everything is almost a political or moral issue. Who cares if the XFree guys want a splash screen on the first boot telling people what they're looking at (it seems that is something they'd find accepable, after looking at the license). If it's better than the last version why not use it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapnuts_ox Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 (edited) yesterday I posted a question in the fedora devel mail list asking what the future of X will be in fedora and possibly other distros. I was told to check out this. http://freedesktop.org/pipermail/x-package...ary/000004.html For those either too busy / lazy to read it i'll make a quick summary. Due to the license change, the slow develpment and the lack of people being allowed to join the devel team for xfree86, x.org took the code and has forked xfree86 4.4.0 right before the license change and are now working on the code. Fedora plans on using this xserver as well as freedesktop.orgs xlib for their future xserver. Hopefully now there will be more open x development and we can start to really see some nice new features being put into x. I feel this will make a better x for everyone and greatly improve the future of *nix. EDIT: I almost forgot. Fedora is looking at ways to make it possible to use multiple versions of X on their linux distro. There will probably also be rpms, debs and tgz files made by private individuals for use in all popular distros for those which don't want to run straight binaries. Edited March 2, 2004 by slapnuts_ox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pHuzi0n Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 I ask myself why would xfree86 change their license as such. From many peoples arguements on the subject, doing so was completely illogical and senseless. However, I believe that there had to be some form of logic behind it. Xfree86 would slowly die and dissappear without the support of the distros, therefore I think there is a reason and a method for this to be resolved...at least in the minds of xfree86. Also changing a license is a big thing, and I am sure it was talked about and discussed before doing. I have heard from exterior sources that many of the core members of xfree did not like this and left and maybe plan to fork a version of xfree not affected by the license. Their logic seems to be that linux isn't very important to them. XFree86 is used with many other unixes (and clones) which have no problem with the new (BSD-style) license; even Mac OS X uses a deritive of it. They're basicly just shutting out linux distros from using it. If you look at their news page, you can get a slight idea of what went on. The core team disbanded at the end of 2003, a lot of them went to X.org which led to some confusion that the projects were merging, and at the end of January the new license was released. This is purely speculation, but I get the feeling that the new license was a power move made by the remaining developers after the core split up. It's hard to tell what really went on because only the people directly involved know anything. There seems to be absolutely no talk in their forums/mailling list about any of the problems until after they happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pHuzi0n Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 This brings up my one problem with the Linux community in general. Everything is almost a political or moral issue.Who cares if the XFree guys want a splash screen on the first boot telling people what they're looking at (it seems that is something they'd find accepable, after looking at the license). If it's better than the last version why not use it? As I already stated, the new license is incompatible with the GPL and it would be illiegal for anyone to distribute GPL'd software along with something that has a license not compatible with the GPL. The new XFree86 is a BSD style license, so all the BSD's can still use it without any woes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bladerunner81 Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 just at this moment stumbled over a post i read some time around last week and which illustrates the backgrounds a bit better: posted by IWBCMAN (ranked "guru"), who seems to have a quite good insight on matters going on inside xfree core team, on http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=1...er=asc&start=25 Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 6:20 am Post subject: I am going to go ahead and take the plunge and explain what I have grokked concerning the new XFree86 licensing issue. David Dawes is ****ed. He is ****ed at Keith Packard. He is is ****ed at other ex-XFree86 developers. He is ****ed off at Redhat and very ****ed off at freedesktop.org. Whether or not he has a right to be ****ed is another question- a question which none of us can suffciently answer. But this license change is David Dawes' payback- his revenge on the renegade rebellion in the X Windows community which started almost exactly a year ago. When Keith Packard got kicked tensions which had been around for a long time surfaced. There was a lot of talk about forking XFree86. The folks at freedesktop.org and xouvert.org totally downplayed this talk- attempting to soothe now open wounds. freedesktop.org released a) Keith Packards new Xserver and b) their very own release of xlibs. This got Dawes very, very ****ed. (rhetoric) just who do these guys think they are? now they have the chutzpah to claim that they themselves are now responsible for XFree86..... In the meantime Dawes acts as if there is nothing wrong with his new license-'if anything needs to be changed its the GPL....'. He is being so unbelievably dishonest. He knows damn well that his changes cause problems with nearly every program which is linked against the xlibs-which is almost everything you see on your X Windows display. But Dawes failed to grasp what was really going on. He failed to understand that people were not mad at him and XFree86 about the slow pace of development-they were upset because the XFree86 core-group(which no longer exists) was engaging in heavy-handed politics(outsting outstanding contributors) and that a new wlesspring of demand for genuine community participation had arisen which confronted and challenged the old tradition which had dominated XFree86 for years- that they were alone, that no one helped them, that everyone complained but did nothing- that they had to go their own way because no one really supported them. Now Dawes has his revenge. He simply could not see the demand for a community- the demand from those who had hitherto played only a trivial role in the development process saying that they wanted to see things happen now. Pent-up desire, demand to see changes. Dawes could have endorsed this, he chose to dis it. OF course Dawes is not alone in this-but he is the only one left after the core-group dissolved at whom one can direct their anger. Dawes used to be the more level-headed of the core-group, far mor fair than some of the other members. Whether you can see the problems with the new license or not is not the issue. The license issue is a thing of "perception"- in more ways than one. The Linux distributors could "sense" that something wasn't right, that something was changing. Now the Linux community and Theo from OpenBSD have made it clear-"NO" to the new license. If they all position themselves saying the new license is "GPL incompatible" the new license *is* incompatible- ie. no one will use or accept the new license. The responsible persons at freedesktop.org and xouvert.org have gone out of their way to avoid a fork-yet their actions are, in the eyes of Dawes and others at XFree86, a fork in every sense of the word, except for the name. The new realities call for new structures and new roles. XFree86 is a staunchly conservative organization-which for the most part has been a Good Thing-it has given us a reliable, stable and free X Windows implementation for many years. Change is in the air and XFree86 has found itself incapable of dealing with the new situation. Luckily the folks at freedesktop.org are really committed to the future of X-they know that X is not simply a Linux thing, and not simply an x86 thing-they respect and endorse the standards, the protocol, and in so doing are remaining loyal to that which XFree86 has stood for. freedsktop.org has only stepped forward due to the fact that XFree86 has been unwilling to really open up it's development process. If XFree86 would have simply reliquished it's heavy-handed control of development this whole issue would have never arisen. The license issue is only making apparent what is and has been going on behind the scenes. Re-Changing the license back to its former state, or changing the GPL will not solve these issues. If XFree86 chose to re-change(ie.revert back) to their original license it would signal a concilliatory move-it would be a gesture of good will. But wounds have already taken place. There is need for much healing. Trust has been violated. I am not saying that Dawes is the only or main culprit here. Many ego's have been involved in this mess. Remeber it always takes two to tango- their are legitimate points of view from all sides involved. As it stands XFree86 has backed itself into a corner and is now becoming the outsider. If they continue this path they will become irrelevant. I wish all the parties involved could just talk things out and agree to new structures and new roles. I doubt this is going to happen- the attitude now in circulation is- "fine- **** you, if you are going to act this way -well we don't need you". This is horribly divisive-it is tearing the threads which hold *the* community together apart. Right now the main battle is about the identity of this- *the* community. Such situations can galvanize new identities-it can also lead to splintered groups working against each other. Only time will tell how things will develop.... seems that this explains very much the real core of the issue. also found that one (gives hope, found on linuxfund.org): Funded: Daniel Stone as Release Manager for fd.o XServer We're proud to announce our sponsorship of Australian student Daniel Stone, who promises to work at a breakneck pace to complete an initial release of the FreeDesktop.org XServer, scheduled for mid-March. Daniel will work to test and package both client libraries and server and driver components in a stand-alone way. Previously, X had been distributed as a monolithic package by the ailing XFree86 team. Also on the agenda is converting the build environment from imake to autoconf/automake. The best way to tune in to updates is to watch CVS of course, but planet.freedesktop.org is a shiny aggregation point for relevant journals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Spaceman Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 I was honestly hoping that people werent going to use the XFree86 4.4 release. Fd.o (which is GPL compatible) needs support from the community, as well as Xouvert. As a Linux user, I can honestly say that 99.9% of the software on my computer is GPL compatible (not sure about Mysql and Apache's licenses). I pride myself in supporting such a wonderful thing, and am a bit dissapointed that people will actually use XFree 4.4 with it's new/current license. Oh well, to each his own. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted March 3, 2004 Veteran Share Posted March 3, 2004 I was honestly hoping that people werent going to use the XFree86 4.4 release. Fd.o (which is GPL compatible) needs support from the community, as well as Xouvert. As a Linux user, I can honestly say that 99.9% of the software on my computer is GPL compatible (not sure about Mysql and Apache's licenses). I pride myself in supporting such a wonderful thing, and am a bit dissapointed that people will actually use XFree 4.4 with it's new/current license.Oh well, to each his own. :) Let's not freak out here. It's a minor, minor difference between XFree86 4.3 using the 1.0 license and XFree86 4.4 using the 1.1 license. What is the difference between 1.0 and 1.1?The first difference is that both the source code and the binary redistribution are now explicitly addressed, because the original 1.0 license failed to clarify what it meant when it referred to "the Software". Traditionally, "software" in the free software world meant "source code". However, our license allows binary-only redistributions, and there is no provision under the 1.0 license that specifically covers our licence notices reproduction in those cases. The second difference is that the new license, unike the old one, explicitly requires that the copyright holders and its contributors be acknowledged in the end user documentation which accompanies redistribution, in the software binaries itself. If people didn't have a problem with XFree86 4.3 then I don't see the problem in acknowleging the copyright holders in the end user documentation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Spaceman Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Let's not freak out here. It's a minor, minor difference between XFree86 4.3 using the 1.0 license and XFree86 4.4 using the 1.1 license.If people didn't have a problem with XFree86 4.3 then I don't see the problem in acknowleging the copyright holders in the end user documentation. That's not what it's about (for me at least). The 1.1 license is GPL-Incompatible. I honestly don't want to use it mainly because they knew it would make it incompatible but still did it. I don't agree with those tactics. =o) Didn't think I was freaking out, that definately wasnt what I planned. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts