The XFree86 Project modified their license (fully effective as of the upcoming 4.4.0 release). The updated license change applies to the base XFree86 license, and to source files that explicitly carry a copyright notice in the name of The XFree86 Project, Inc. Copyrights and licenses in the names of others will not be affected by this change, however some fear that these changes might be GPL-incompatible.
XFree86 Changes License; Fear of Being GPL-Incompatible
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
> You’ve stated that it would be better to put it as
> public domain, but this isn’t possible in every country.
Huh? In which country are you not allowed to fortfeit your copyright?
“But why must a C library be GPL, or a graphics cards driver, or “more”? ”
Personally, I don’t care much about the particular graphics
drivers or the libraries people whine about so frequently.
I’ve got an NVidia card and use the closed-source drivers
happily.
The reason i made my post is because I get the feeling that
some people in this discussion are against the GPL simply
because “It’s not as free as *** and therefore it’s bad for
business/people/whatever”
There are several kinds of freedom. (as you all are discussing
over and over) I believe that when you create something,
that something is yours to keep or give away by any means
that you like.
The oh-so-great GPL is just one friggin license that allows
people to release software, ensuring that it will be kept
free. An agreement between two parts. Nothing more. Do you
want to see that as a limitation or as a means
to take away YOUR freedom? fine. Write your own damn
library/program/driver then. There’s your freedom. If the
original author wants his implementation to be open for as
long as the GPL is (believed to be) valid, it’s his/her call.
And it’s his/her call to attach strings also. The amount
of strings the GPL attaches (only one) is, to my eyes, well worth
the benefit. And GPL software *IS* very free in a lot
of ways. The one string is there simply to remind you
that those libraries/programs/drivers were not yours to begin with.
Now, if you are talking about “Writing code that other people could need, either to build a larger product or to educate themselves”, then you do not have to bind your
work to GPL sources. Want to give away completely freely?
You can do that only with what’s 100% yours. That’s the
way this world has always worked, as far as I see.
“One – as maintainer of a piece of GPL’ed software, if you ever accept a bugfix by someone else, what happens to your IP, your right to release another copy of your code under a different license?”
You can freely release the code copyrighted by you under gpl *and* also any other proprietary license. this is what mysql and qt does. so your copyright is retained with you. dont use ip. its a catchall term. if you mean patent rights you will to explicitly license the patent to be used for that gpl’ed code.
Two – how many GPL’ed pieces of software do you know that actually state a specific version of the GPL? And how many state “X.Y or later”, or omit any reference to the version?
a whole lot of software from linux to mysql uses a specific version of a license. somebody who licenses his software should carefully go through the license and understand its implications
(my original response to you just got modded down, bummer =oP)
“I bet you use “micro$oft” too..”
No. I just wanted to avoid a specific word.
“As much as you seem to feel an uncontrollable urge to come to the defense of the GPL”
It’s not uncontrollable, nor an urge. I just I felt like it.
“Something that has to redefine a word to exist is a bit suspect.”
You call it ‘redefine’. I call it ‘trying to explain’.
I think you are a bit paranoid. Calm down a bit.
The reason i made my post is because I get the feeling that
some people in this discussion are against the GPL simply
because “It’s not as free as *** and therefore it’s bad for
business/people/whatever”
No no no. We got all upset because the parent article was discussing how the new XFree license was incompatible with the GPL. If someone likes the GPL and uses for their code, I don’t think anyone here would care.
We *do* care though, when GPL supporters go on and on about how *free* the GPL is rather than simply stating the restrictions the GPL imposes. I think the “Free Software” talk is very misleading, just state that it’s free but with some restrictions. Then everyone knows what they are getting into when they tinker with the code.
It goes without saying that we also care when GPL supporters complain about other peoples choice of licenses.
Well, to actually stay on topic the question of freedom is relevent when discussing how the new XFree license is incompatible with the GPL.
Now, how are gpl supporters ‘trying to explain’ GPL by using “Free” vs. “free”. I see that as a redefinition.
“We *do* care though, when GPL supporters go on and on about how *free* the GPL is rather than simply stating the restrictions the GPL imposes. I think the “Free Software” talk is very misleading, just state that it’s free but with some restrictions. Then everyone knows what they are getting into when they tinker with the code.”
Well, i agree that GPL purists are a pain more often than not.
The “free software talk” is just as misleading as Microsoft
saying that Windows is always cheaper, or that the GPL is
communism.
Every person that has read enough and gets informed well
enough knows that you can’t judge how good John Doe’s software is
basing your conclusions on what John Doe supporters say. We
get crap on all fronts.
“It goes without saying that we also care when GPL supporters complain about other peoples choice of licenses.”
You shouldn’t.
I once read some dumb*ss at slashdot saying something like
“you gotta love Linux users. When you choose an OS, they
bash you for it. So you choose Linux and a shell,
they bash you for your choice of shells. … … ”
You should only “care” about ( insert name here ) supporters
“complaining” until you made your choice. Then it’s all
opinions.
Would you “care” if you get bashed for voting a given
candidate? No? That’s because you had your reasons and
your motive was just as good as anyone else’s.
“Now, how are gpl supporters ‘trying to explain’ GPL by using “Free” vs. “free”. I see that as a redefinition”
I wasn’t present during the “Free vs. free” discussion.
Anyway, i think you are refering to the “Free vs. Gratis”
issue that is always a bit hard to explain in english.
I already said what i wanted to say about the GPL, so i’ll
leave the rest up to you.
It’s ok, your english failings don’t prejudice my opinion.
I guess you have nothing to add besides riding the fence. That’s fine, it’s your choice.
What’s “riding the fence?”
Of course, you are right in that I don’t care what GPL people think of *me*. But when the GPL people make front page news by complaining about the new XFree license, then I care. Why? Because they might convince those not in the know that anything other than the GPL is bad.
That of course would promote *more* GPL software in places where there is no good reason for it. If an author really *wants* the GPL for some reason, then fine. But if they just need a license they beleive to be free, then they should choose a custom license or something closer to public domain.
Most people are choosing GPL these days out of some twisted logic they got from FSF diatrib on how it’s really evil to release software with licenses that can be changed to proprietary licenses. The FSF itself is only sligtly anti-non-copyleft as you can see here
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html
But a lot of GPL supports are not so moderate. And anyone reading any material on http://www.gnu.org, be warned. The language they use is *very* manipulative. Things are worded in such a way as to make GPL the only good license. They *really* abuse the word free in their literature.
I’ll leave you to google for an appropriate answer.
“But when the GPL people make front page news by complaining about the new XFree license, then I care. Why? Because they might convince those not in the know that anything other than the GPL is bad. ”
I agree with you for the most part. I i get what you
mean, you are basically pissed off at the amount of GPL propaganda.
Some time ago i was like that, getting pissed at Microsoft.
Then, i ALSO got pissed off by SCO.
Then, i ALSO got pissed off by FreBSD supporters bashing my OS
of choice.
Then, i said “I’m getting pissed off to often.”
Did you ever see the movie “Training Day”? I thought it
was a pretty bad movie, but somewhere near the
beginning of it, there’s a line that I found great.
“You see what i’m reading? This is a newspaper. It’s 90%
BULLSH*T. But i read it. Why? Because it entertains me.”
(or something like that.)
You read about Linux, and there’s a great deal of bull.
You read about Windows, and there’s a great deal of bull.
You read about SCO, and there’s a great deal of bull.
But keep reading, and at some point you’ll find you
don’t get pissed anymore. Anyone with half a brain will
eventually learn that the media is mostly entertainment
and very little real information.
And you just have to accept that, because it’s not ever
going to change. (not doring our life span, that’s for sure.)
Just to be on topic for a change, I’ll say that i don’t
care much about the changes in XFree’s licensing model.
Even if they were to close the source, ss long as the new
forks are still available, nothing was lost.
So you prefer to lower yourself to a level of entertainment as opposed to legitimate discussion because you feel change is unnacheivable.
I for one don’t find dulling down my sensitivities to be an acceptable coping mechanism. I’m glad it works for you though
I can’t find a clear definition, but, from context,
it sounds like “not making a decision” or “not picking
a side”…
Are you trying to say that there’s a “side” i need to
pick?
Well, then i guess i’m a GPL supporter. no? that was why
i first posted to this story. Maybe i’m not a fanatic,
but who the hell cares, no one is reading this far in the discussion thread anymore anyway.
It’s not “lowering myself to a level of entertainment”
as much as it is “taking it more lightly”. =)
“You can do what you like with the code except claim you wrote it.” Thankyou.
But keep reading, and at some point you’ll find you
don’t get pissed anymore. Anyone with half a brain will
eventually learn that the media is mostly entertainment
and very little real information.
Hmm, yet you are here, as am I, nattering back and forth about the GPL. If you think I’m frothing at the mouth angry over here you are wrong.
And this is not media really, it’s a public forum , an international one even. And we’re all just having fun posting here, giving our opinions on things. So in the spirit of discussion, I’m giving my opinions on the GPL and FSF in the hopes that someone may find them enlightening, interesting, or amusing.
As for being on topic, I’m much more interested in Keith Packards X stuff these days. See, I’m more of a techincal purist, if something is technologically cool, I don’t really care what the license is. In that light the license the main X people choose probably won’t matter much anyways. Of course, if there is an option, I’d rather see non-copyleft free stuff become successful. I think it promotes advances better, as well as standards.
“And this is not media really, it’s a public forum , an international one even. And we’re all just having fun”
yeah, but it often happens that not all of us are “just
having fun” around here =)
And i didn’t mean to say that you were pissed off right now.
I just responded to you saying that you did
get pissed off when GPL fanatics spread misinformation.
“I’d rather see non-copyleft free stuff become successful.”
.. I’d rather see the non-copyleft stuff become successful
AND the OpenSource re-implmentation grow =P
If you want to derive revenue from the licensing of software, then don’t use the GPL, it’s as simple as that! However, selling shrink-wrapped software isn’t the only way to generate revenue through writing code.
One could write an app that is used internally by a company/government agency, decreasing costs and increasing revenue.
One can offer services, as you have indicated (not everything can be made so simple that grandma can use it – why do you think there are MSCEs out there?).
One can distribute source code freely but sell binaries in a convenient fashion and at a reasonable price, deriving revenue from non-techies who don’t know how to compile stuff, or don’t want to deal with the hassle.
Write software for a piece of hardware you’re selling (you can’t copy hardware!) and increase your revenue by not having to pay a licence fee or royalties.
It is possible to be profitable while selling GNU software – look at Mandrake, who has started turning in a profit after finally getting over their edutainment debacle (that’s what made them lose money, not the fact that they were selling free software).
And, if you still want to go proprietary, then do it. You just won’t be allowed a free ride by using free (as in freedom) source code to make a proprietary software product – you’ll actually have to work (or pay some licensing fees) to earn your money!
Two – how many GPL’ed pieces of software do you know that actually state a specific version of the GPL? And how many state “X.Y or later”, or omit any reference to the version?
This doesn’t make sense. You don’t have a notice with your GPLed software that says: this is covered by GPL vX.Y – the license itself is attached to the software package. It’s there. You can read it. Who cares if the FSF comes up with a new version – the one that counts for your piece of code is the one that’s distributed with it. You can even take the GPL, change some provisions you don’t like (though, to be on the safe side, you should have a lawyer look at it) and call it the “Freakin’ Awesome Public Licence, Beeyotch!” if you want…
It’s always the same thing, whenever there’s an article about the GPL on OSNews, you get a bunch of people criticizing it, even though they don’t fully understand it. It’s quite simple, really: if you don’t like it, don’t use it!
Free (as in speech) vs. free (as in beer) is not a redefiniton, since the word has two distinct meanings. In many other languages, there are actually two different words, one for each meaning. In french, for example, we have “libre” and “gratuit”.
English is a language that is notorious for have a lot of words that have more than one meaning. Thus, it is important to specify the meaning of a word when a controversy arises about its use in a given context.
It’s ok, your english failings don’t prejudice my opinion.
Could you be any more arrogant? If you can’t understand the differences between the various meanings of the word “free”, then it’s fair to say that you’re the one having a less-than-perfect grasp of the English language.
Let me direct you to my old friends, Merriam and Webster:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=free
You may be surprised to learn that there are fifteen different meanings to the word (though some are indubitably similar). In the present context, the “Free vs. free” debate opposes meanings #1 and #10.
…all you folks criticizing the GPL should focus on the issue at hand, i.e. the advertising clause that will now be found in the XFree86 license. There is a thorough explanation of the kind of problems caused by such a clause on the FSF website:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
Here is a revealing excerpt:
“Initially the obnoxious BSD advertising clause was used only in the Berkeley Software Distribution. That did not cause any particular problem, because including one sentence in an ad is not a great practical difficulty. […]
But, as you might expect, other developers did not copy the clause verbatim. They changed it, replacing “University of California” with their own institution or their own names. […] When people put many such programs together in an operating system, the result is a serious problem. Imagine if a software system required 75 different sentences, each one naming a different author or group of authors. To advertise that, you would need a full-page ad.”
Eventually, the advertising clause was dropped from the BSD license, which BTW is considered a “non-copyleft free software license.” Despite what the anti-GPL posters are keep insinuating, the FSF is not against non-copyleft free software. From the same page:
“We recommend copyleft, because it protects freedom for all users, but non-copylefted software can still be free software, and useful to the free software community.”
But then again, there are always people who have an axe to grind with something that prevents corporations stealing people’s code and re-using it in their own proprietary offerings…
@ Anonymous:
> > One – as maintainer of a piece of GPL’ed software,
> > if you ever accept a bugfix by someone else, what
> > happens to your IP, your right to release another
> > copy of your code under a different license?”
>
> You can freely release the code copyrighted by you under
> gpl *and* also any other proprietary license.
Wrong. Legally, as soon as the code is no longer 100% your own, you basically need the written consent of everybody who ever contributed to it to change the license. This goes for *any* license.
@ Archie:
Your list of examples of how to make money from GPL’ed code is as pathetic as every such list I’ve ever seen.
> One could write an app that is used internally by a
> company/government agency, decreasing costs and
> increasing revenue.
If it’s used internally only, the license matters zilch. No points to GPL.
> One can offer services, as you have indicated…
That’s unrelated to the code. I could even offer services without writing code first. No points to GPL.
> One can distribute source code freely but sell binaries
> in a convenient fashion and at a reasonable price,
> deriving revenue from non-techies who don’t know how to
> compile stuff, or don’t want to deal with the hassle.
Again, that implies that it’s too difficult for Joe Average to use in the first place. Zero points for the designer, zero points for the GPL.
> Write software for a piece of hardware you’re selling
> (you can’t copy hardware!) and increase your revenue by
> not having to pay a licence fee or royalties.
Again, I was talking OS design, not some derivative income stream.
> It is possible to be profitable while selling GNU
> software…
None of your examples was about selling GNU software. All of them were about “auxiliary ways of income despite placing your code under GPL”. And you forgot asking for donations… “please, do you have a couple of cents for a starving programmer…”
> And, if you still want to go proprietary, then do it.
> You just won’t be allowed a free ride by using free
> (as in freedom) source code to make a proprietary
> software product – you’ll actually have to work (or
> pay some licensing fees) to earn your money!
Again, and sloooooooowly so you might finally catch the idea: I don’t want to make a living from it – I’m quite happy doing this in my spare time. But I want it to pay for its costs.
Yes, you can reap money by making a Linux distro – because it’s next to impossible to get that s***load of stuff up and running yourself if you don’t have one. That’s not a feature, damnit, that’s probably the biggest flaw of the whole beast! And I’m sure as hell not going to copy that lack of intuitivity just so I can, after 8 hours of coding, spend another 8 hours of consulting to earn the money that pays the flat I’m sleeping in the remaining 8 hours!
So, no consulting, no hardware, no internal corporate use, no asking for donations, no extra charge for compiling all that stuff for you.
But I still want to be able to provide a development and download server, magazine ads, and perhaps even legal decoding of DVDs (gasp!)…
> the license itself is attached to the software package.
> It’s there. You can read it. Who cares if the FSF comes
> up with a new version – the one that counts for your
> piece of code is the one that’s distributed with it.
Go forth in thy belief…
I don’t know why GPL zealots are making such a big deal of this. I’m sure most developers don’t mind giving them credit. Sure, having a list of 75 names can be tedious but it’s not that bad. Disk space is cheap and text is easily compressable.
If they don’t like it, perhaps they should shut up and start developing their own implentation of X, preferably without using XFree86 as a base (not even 0.0.1 as I believe it’s hypocrite to use something from someone you don’t support, pretty much a la SCO that is using SAMBA while trashing GPL). I seriously don’t care if it slow down the development of a workable GUI for Linux as only distributions and/or people drinking Stallman’s you-know-what would be affected.
In Germany it’s possible to transfer copyright to anybody, but putting something as public domain is not possible in German law.
Of course, you can allow erverybody to do everything legal with it, but it’s legally problematic in some countries.
Article in German with bits of information to this issue:
http://www.linux-magazin.de/Artikel/ausgabe/1997/01/Freeware/freewa…
Personally, I prefer to acknowledge sources from which I develop rather than be forced to reveal my personal source code. If I have to list 75 names, so be it. I don’t even mind making available all the sources I use, but I balk at being required to reveal how I used, assembled, and embellished the original sources.
Without question there is a ideological gulf between the various types of licences and what is a fair licensing scheme and what isn’t.
I, personally, avoid any source code that requires me to open my code. So GPL’d stuff is out, or that imposes any restrictions on how I distribute my code. (So when Borland years ago came out with the silly licensing that forbade anyone developing products similar to their own, I abandonned Borland. MS forbids benchamrking .NET apps – so I don’t use .NET and I don’t recommend it. etc, etc, etc)
It is unfortunate that there are different licensing ideologies which lead to a lot of wheel reinvention.
John
Perhaps some people here who like referring to other as “GPL zealots” tend to be Anti-GPL zealots in my opinion.
PS: Solar, you should know that there’s no kind of “public domain” possible in Germany as it exists in the US. (-> *.dip0.t-ipconnect.de)
But keep reading, and at some point you’ll find you
don’t get pissed anymore.
I can read as much as I want, but if I have four scotch & colas, I’ll still get pissed
Perhaps some people here who like referring to other as “GPL zealots” tend to be Anti-GPL zealots in my opinion.
Why? There’s a difference between GPL supporter and GPL zealot. You can support the GPL without rejecting any other existing licence in the world. I support the GPL but I don’t think the rest of the world outside the GPL is the work of the devil. I believe that people should try to adapt to the world instead of adapting the rest of the world to their likings. If they don’t like the new XPL, they just have to develop their own alternative. They will get my respect if they do. They won’t if they fork or if they keep yapping instead of actually doing something.
There’s a difference between GPL supporter and GPL zealot. You can support the GPL without rejecting any other existing licence in the world. I support the GPL but I don’t think the rest of the world outside the GPL is the work of the devil.
It’s also possible to reject all other licences and consider the GPL (and other copylefts) to be the best of a bad bunch without being a GPL zealot. A lot of people reject the concept of IP and would like to see it totally abolished (some poeple even reject property). Using a licence that doesn’t require modifications to be free can cause IP to continue, inasmuch as while you’re essentially disclaiming the property, it doesn’t prevent others from keeping it. (The GPL is, true, based on IP; however, the GPL uses this as a way to make IP and no IP equivalent.) Remember that the objectives of the two licences differ, and so many people who exclusively prefer the GPL do so because of the objectives and are thus certainly not ‘GPL zealots’, but might be ‘anti-IP zealots’ or ‘anti-property zealots’; indeed, the term ‘zealot’ is still probably not applicable to them, excepting of course as a piece of propaganda.
Secondly, considering that the GPL is something of a de facto standard in FOSS, and considering the strife XFree86 are having right now with splits and mergers and fd.o and X.org and everything else, they’re practically shooting themselves in the foot if it isn’t GPL compatible.
Also, I don’t understand what’s wrong with forking XFree86. If the licence up to but excluding 4.4.0 RC3 was acceptible but passed it not, and that licence allows forking, then what’s wrong with forking it at the latest possible point, thus minimising unnecessary duplication of work? Why re-invent more wheels than you have to? Furthermore, if by ‘yapping’, they can have the licence changed to one acceptible by all parties, they’re avoiding any duplication, which sounds a much better alterntavie to me.
Your list of examples of how to make money from GPL’ed code is as pathetic as every such list I’ve ever seen.
That’s your opinion.
If it’s used internally only, the license matters zilch. No points to GPL.
No points taken off, you mean. This is a way in which GPL (or another free license) can help saving money.
That’s unrelated to the code. I could even offer services without writing code first. No points to GPL.
Again, no points taken off. You do overlook a point: a GPLed program will be attractive for a service provider as it can be redistributed – this means potentially bringing in additional customers, especially if you do a good job and the word-of-mouth about your services goes hand-in-hand with redistribution.
But that’s besides the point. We’re talking about ways that you can have a revenue stream with GPLed programs – we never said they had be exclusive to GPLed programs.
Again, that implies that it’s too difficult for Joe Average to use in the first place. Zero points for the designer, zero points for the GPL.
That is one of the worst arguments I’ve ever heard! How hard is Windows to use and install if you only have the source code? Software packagers and distributors are providing the same service that MS is overcharging for: putting useable software so that the average Joe doesn’t have to. I mean, this is like saying that a Tivo would be a hassle to build from scratch, therefore it’s too difficult for Joe User! It doesn’t make any sense!
For the record, my totally non-geek girlfriend has no problem using a pre-installed Linux computer, but wouldn’t know how to install Windows if her life depended on it. That’s why you have people packaging stuff together, and they should be compensated for their trouble – but, following your twisted logic, this is okay for MS but not for Linux distro makers? This is a completely untenable argument, based on blatantly biased double standards. The only difference is that, with Linux, technically-oriented people have a choice: buy it ready-made or build it themselves.
I think you’re not only anti-GPL, but that you’re anti-Linux as well. Why don’t you just admit that you’ve got an agenda here, it’ll save us all a lot of time.
Again, I was talking OS design, not some derivative income stream.
You want to make money by making a proprietary OS? I think I might have a bridge in New York that I could interest you in.
I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but BeOS tried this, and they failed. There is no way anyone can challenge Microsoft on its home turf. The only thing that makes Linux a threat to MS is the GPL, because that means that they can’t buy it out, or “embrace and extend” it. Bitch all you want about the GPL, but without it Linux would have already gone the way of the dodo.
None of your examples was about selling GNU software.
Incorrect. The packaging one was about selling software. It could be software you wrote, or that somebody else wrote, but it’s still selling GPLed software (not GNU, pay attention).
All of them were about “auxiliary ways of income despite placing your code under GPL”.
Apart from the fact that you are incorrect, the fact remains that income is income. Period.
And you forgot asking for donations… “please, do you have a couple of cents for a starving programmer…”
Despite your caricature, there are people who have made quite a bit of money with donations. Sure, they won’t become insanely rich, but hey! Becoming insanely rich isn’t everything…
Again, and sloooooooowly so you might finally catch the idea
Oh, I’ve “caught the idea” all right. It’s you who doesn’t seem to get it: if you don’t like the GPL, then don’t license your code under it!
Gee, how many times must one repeat the obvious!
I don’t want to make a living from it – I’m quite happy doing this in my spare time. But I want it to pay for its costs.
Its costs? If you’re doing this in your spare time, then who cares what the development costs are.
Basically, you’re saying “one can’t make money with GPL software.” Then when people give you valid examples of how you can make money, you reject them without giving a good reason why. It seems as if you’re not really interested in debating GPL business models, but that you’d rather just push your agenda.
Yes, you can reap money by making a Linux distro – because it’s next to impossible to get that s***load of stuff up and running yourself if you don’t have one.
Again, how easy would it be to install and use Windows if you only had access to the source code?
All software begins as source code. Proprietary vendors may hide that code, but it still exists. And it’s not user-friendly until it’s been compiled and packaged. Distro makers provide a service, and they should be compensated for it – but you have the choice to do-it-yourself if you want to.
That’s not a feature, damnit, that’s probably the biggest flaw of the whole beast!
Nope, that is a feature – and probably the greatest feature: freedom.
Windows lacks that feature: technically-inclined people cannot just download the source code, compile it and install it (having possibly modified to better suit their need).
So Linux has the best of both worlds: pre-compiled, pre-packaged (and sometimes pre-installed) binaries at a reasonable price, or a do-it-yourself bundle of code for free.
So, no consulting, no hardware, no internal corporate use, no asking for donations, no extra charge for compiling all that stuff for you.
That is your choice, and no one else. But they are valid models for GPLed software, like it or not.
But I still want to be able to provide a development and download server, magazine ads, and perhaps even legal decoding of DVDs (gasp!)…
Funny, there are plenty of development and download servers for GPL apps. I’ve also seen some magazine ads for Linux (not as much as from MS, of course, but then again Linux relies heavily of word-of-mouth, which is the best marketing you can get for your dollar).
Oh, and perhaps you weren’t aware, but DVD-Jon has been acquitted of all charges – and there’s nothing preventing a distro-maker from bundling DVD-reading apps in boxed set or for-sale downloadable ISOs.
Go forth in thy belief…
I see you didn’t even try to make an argument here. The fact remains: the license that counts is the one that’s distributed with your software. You own the copyright, you set the terms (with the exception of fair use provisions). Again – and your lack of a credible response validates this – it does not matter if the FSF makes a new version of the GPL license, it won’t change the wording of the license you’ve distributed your software under. That’s just common sense.
I, personally, avoid any source code that requires me to open my code. So GPL’d stuff is out,
In other words, you want to use stuff for free without giving anything back in return. Apart from being a bit selfish, that’s totally within your rights, and there is quite a bit of BSD (and other non-copyleft free software) code out there.
But you’ve got to understand that there’s a lot of people out there who are ready to give the product of their hard work for free, but only under the condition that anyone modifying it also releases it under the same license. That’s also within their rights, and while you may not like it you can’t say that it’s not fair.
Not only is it fair, but it’s also quite generous – and it insulates their work from corporate takeover.
It’s also possible to reject all other licences and consider the GPL (and other copylefts) to be the best of a bad bunch without being a GPL zealot. […]
True. However, those that want to boycott XFree86 for such a trivial change are. If they are not for you, they sure are for me. It’s not like they are claiming “all your code are belong to us”. It just seems excessive to me.
Secondly, considering that the GPL is something of a de facto standard in FOSS, and considering the strife XFree86 are having right now with splits and mergers and fd.o and X.org and everything else, they’re practically shooting themselves in the foot if it isn’t GPL compatible.
That’s a fact… but this situation is vaguely familiar (Microsoft, anyone?) and I don’t like this. Bowing down to a majority just because it’s a majority isn’t my thing, especially when that majority choose that licence without knowing the full implications. I’m *not* saying that we should fight any majority, I’m just saying that the XFree Group should be able to do what they want with their code and that the GNU community should discuss with them or thinking about it before boycotting/forking or whatever. However, I would have more respect for them if they start up from scratch instead of forking for such a stupid change.
Also, I don’t understand what’s wrong with forking XFree86. If the licence up to but excluding 4.4.0 RC3 was acceptible but passed it not, and that licence allows forking, then what’s wrong with forking it at the latest possible point, thus minimising unnecessary duplication of work? Why re-invent more wheels than you have to?
Ask the last question to those developing Linux distributions…
Indeed, there’s nothing wrong in forking. However, I would think it’s hypocrite in this particular case. To me, it’s basically saying “Thanks for the work, now screw you” just because of a trivial change in the licence. Moreover, most people claiming that XFree86 is dogshit are Linux users… Perhaps it could be a good idea for them to start something else from scratch instead of bitching the work provided generously by a group of volunteers.
Furthermore, if by ‘yapping’, they can have the licence changed to one acceptible by all parties, they’re avoiding any duplication, which sounds a much better alterntavie to me.
The only compromise I can see in that particular case is the removal of the advertising clause… and that’s exactly what they added, no?
My 2¢.
All these anti-GPL people are just lamers, i bet they have never written one line of software for community and they curse GPL because they can’t steal the source code.
Freedom doesn’t mean that you can do anything, freedom means you can do anything without harming others…DON’t YOU GET SUCH A SIMPLE THING.
What would happen to linux without GPL? Everyone damn company (may be including Apple and MS) will make their own version and keep the secrets to them. Think about it guys, i wrote the source code and tomorrow someone take it, read it, modifies it, sell it and i suddenly have no right to see the modifications, because i released it under BSD. I don’t think there are many people out there who would like that.
GPL enforce you to reciprocate. You can’t just benefit from the community without reciprocating or you are just LAME who loves to steal others work and not reciprocate.
I am sick of these dumbasses who think that freedom is in what you do. Yeah Bin Laden is free to kill others because he thinks it is right. I should be free to smack these anti GPL lamers because i am free to do what i want and thats what freedom means to these people. WOW I can do anything i want LOL. I can kill people, i can steal things, YES FREEDOM. BSD ROCKS LOL LOL LOL. God help these Stfu people.
True. However, those that want to boycott XFree86 for such a trivial change are. If they are not for you, they sure are for me. It’s not like they are claiming “all your code are belong to us”. It just seems excessive to me.
I didn’t say they weren’t zealots, though I’ll still dispute that; I said they weren’t necessarily GPL zealots.
That’s a fact… but this situation is vaguely familiar (Microsoft, anyone?) and I don’t like this. Bowing down to a majority just because it’s a majority isn’t my thing, especially when that majority choose that licence without knowing the full implications. I’m *not* saying that we should fight any majority, I’m just saying that the XFree Group should be able to do what they want with their code and that the GNU community should discuss with them or thinking about it before boycotting/forking or whatever. However, I would have more respect for them if they start up from scratch instead of forking for such a stupid change.
I’m not sure that the situation is similar to Microsoft. Microsoft tends to force people to do stuff. In this case, what’s happened is a minority (who happen to have three arms), who happen to own the ball, have said: ‘We’re going to change the rules. From now on, you have to catch the ball with your middle hand’. The majority only have two hands, and so can’t catch the ball with the middle hand, but they are capable of duplicating the ball and finding some other court to play on with the old rules. Worse still, before the ball-owners had made this decision, they expelled some of the ball-owners (who duplicated the ball and went somewhere else), and some of the ball-owners decided they didn’t like the rules, so they duplicated the ball and went somewhere else, too. This makes the game less fun for the original ball-owners, because while there’s still a lot of people with three hands—more than just the ball-owners—the more the merrier and now the ball’s more likely to go off the court. On the other hand, the majority of the two-handers are quite happy to rejoin the original ball-owners if they give up their rule.
Ask the last question to those developing Linux distributions…
Most of the different Linux distros are trying to accomplish different things. What you’re asking is for someone to build something that exists and that they’re entitled to from scratch to do the same thing as what is already being done.
Indeed, there’s nothing wrong in forking. However, I would think it’s hypocrite in this particular case. To me, it’s basically saying “Thanks for the work, now screw you” just because of a trivial change in the licence.
A person is a hypocrite, you get hypocritical things. But the way I see it, they’re saying: ‘You’ve effectively told us we can’t play. Some of us have contributed to XFree86’s success, even if it’s only by submitting bug reports. We’re going to reluctantly have to start playing on another field. But seeing as it won’t cost you anything, we’ll copy your ball and your rule book from the last moment it let us play’. And if the change makes the licence GPL-incompatible, it obviously isn’t ‘trivial’, is it?
Moreover, most people claiming that XFree86 is dogshit are Linux users… Perhaps it could be a good idea for them to start something else from scratch instead of bitching the work provided generously by a group of volunteers.
And most of the people claiming that XFree86 are also idiots who don’t understand that no, really, the fact that it’s network transparent doesn’t make it slow! Many of these people wouldn’t be able to write an X-Server, let alone design another windows system, from scratch, and those that could seem to be unable to gain critical mass. Also, I think it isn’t too much of an overstatement to say that the majority of people using XFree86 are also Linux users, and, in fact, that the majority of people using a free (for suitably liberal definitions) desktop are Linux users, so this is certainly going to have an effect. But I will grant you your ‘[the] majority choose that licence without knowing the full implications‘. (OTOH, it’s my opinion that if everyone knew the full implications, only the evil would chose against it, but I have an odd definition of evil (‘the desire to attain and/or consolidate power’) and some odd views…)
The only compromise I can see in that particular case is the removal of the advertising clause… and that’s exactly what they added, no?
True, but the incentive is to make ‘don’t claim it as yours’ stronger. There are other ways to do it. I think an explicit ‘Don’t claim it as yours’ and perhaps ‘… and don’t remove us claiming it as ours’ would be sufficient (except in legalese), but I’m not a lawyer.
I believe we could argue for days on that subject and I seriously don’t think that we would change our position… So let’s agree to disagree, okay?
I do understand your points. However, I still think it’s a bit excessive to fork a project just because of a stupid issue like this. Yes, the change might make it non-GPL compatible but the GPL is not the mother of all libre licences. Anyway, I guess I shouldn’t make a big fuss of this and I only hope that we won’t have 18 forks of XFree86 in the future… That’s what I fear.