XFree86 is dead. It's been rejected by...

By Fred Derf
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Fred Derf Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

XFree86 gets underwhelmed by Linux distro support

Xfree licence controversy breaks wind

By Fernando Cassia: Thursday 04 March 2004, 10:23

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14511

But David Dawes seems a little suspicious: "I have heard privately that some vendors were planning to move to an X.Org release even before this licence issue came up. That probably makes business sense for the vendors given that X.Org is a vendor-oriented organization sponsored by hardware and software companies, while XFree86 is an independent group of volunteer developers. I suspect that the licence issue may have affected the timing, but not the end result", he concluded.

In private, however, programmers at some Linux distros that have rejected the new licence weren't very kind to Xfree86.org. One said: "The XFree86 project is dead, this was just the last shot," conditions of anonymity.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/145736-xfree86-is-dead-its-been-rejected-by/
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Fred Derf Veteran

Posted
  • Author
  • Veteran
Posted
What IS the controversy? I've been seeing all these news stories about this, but I have no idea what the license change was.

It would seem that nobody liked the people behind XFree86. The new license (requiring acknolegements in the user documentation) was just the last straw that killed XFree86's relationship with the distros.

Grand Master

DrunkenMaster

Posted
Posted
What IS the controversy? I've been seeing all these news stories about this, but I have no idea what the license change was.

I think it basically involves printing credits of the software creators before the software loads up.

eg

This software brought to you by:

Programmer 1

Programmer 2 ....

This would make it unbearably long to load up. Imagine if all freesoftware, and for that matter - any software - were to do this.

Grand Master

Fred Derf Veteran

Posted
  • Author
  • Veteran
Posted
I think it basically involves printing credits of the software creators before the software loads up.

eg

This software brought to you by:

Programmer 1

Programmer 2 ....

This would make it unbearably long to load up. Imagine if all freesoftware, and for that matter - any software - were to do this.

It only requires that the contributers be acknowledged in the end user documentation.

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, unlike 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.

http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licenses.html

Mentor

acidic-e-

Posted
Posted
This is one of the cases where people don't want to spend the little effort required to acknowelge that they are using someone else's code.

very much agreed on this. This whole thing is just stupid. Even thought the Xfree team have been asshats in the past and still are they have one of the best programs around (for now)

Grand Master

Fred Derf Veteran

Posted
  • Author
  • Veteran
Posted
thats what the whole thing is about?  there has to be more...thats so...childish...

It's personal. The distro makers don't the people behind XFree86. They say they are authoritarian and draconian and they take forever to acknowledge bug reports or submitted code updates.

The article states that the distros were making plans to move away from XFree86 long before the license change came about. It's more of a convenient excuse than anything else.

Rising Star

pHuzi0n

Posted
Posted

Do any of you realize that it would be ILLEGAL for them to distribute anything that uses the new XFree86 license with GPL'd code? The new license is incompatible with the GPL and therefore they would be violating the contract (ie. the GPL) by distributing linux with anything covered by the new XFree86 license. It's not just about a little tiff over acknowledging them... The guy that's running XFree86 now is just being an @$$ and purposefully changed the license to prevent anybody from using it with linux.

Grand Master

Fred Derf Veteran

Posted
  • Author
  • Veteran
Posted
Do any of you realize that it would be ILLEGAL for them to distribute anything that uses the new XFree86 license with GPL'd code? The new license is incompatible with the GPL and therefore they would be violating the contract (ie. the GPL) by distributing linux with anything covered by the new XFree86 license. It's not just about a little tiff over acknowledging them... The guy that's running XFree86 now is just being an @$$ and purposefully changed the license to prevent anybody from using it with linux.

It's ALWAYS been based on a BSD-style license not a GPL one. The recent change was very minor.

Community Regular

NETknightX

Posted
Posted
It's ALWAYS been based on a BSD-style license not a GPL one.  The recent change was very minor.

It may appear to be a minor change but it is not. The new license imposes an additional restriction that is beyond what is contained in the GPL whereas the old one did not (point #3 of the new license specifically).

Also, the old (original) BSD style was NOT GPL-compatible (comparable with the new xfree86 license).

FreeBSD and others use a "newer" BSD license that IS GPL-compatible (comparable to the old xfree86 license).

Rising Star

pHuzi0n

Posted
Posted
It's ALWAYS been based on a BSD-style license not a GPL one. The recent change was very minor.

But up until now it was compatible with the GPL and could be sublicensed under the GPL. Since a linux distro is a derivative work, every program in the distro effectively becomes licensed under the GPL. Since this new line line in the XFree86 license isn't compatible with the GPL, the distro would be breaking the license for everything that is covered by the GPL.

Grand Master

john smith 1924 Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

The lead dev was saying that distros were looking for a convenient way to drop the software anyway; this licensing change brought that time plan for ward. Its not like they've dropped it completely - they've gone back to a older version, and just modified that code to bring it up to speed.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.