The Torrent files are out now for Mandrake Linux 10 RC1, while MandrakeSoft announced that they are reverting back to XFree86 4.3 because of the recent licensing change for XFree86 4.4.
Mandrake 10-RC1 Released; Reverts to XFree86 4.3
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
The reasons for reverting to 4.3 are rather interesting: http://archives.mandrakelinux.com/cooker/2004-02/msg04636.php
I think this is what “they” [1] should do: Fork XFree86 4.4-RC2, if freedesktop.org’s X will take too long to complete. The XFree86 team has proved to be a pain in the back, they don’t move forward fast, they trash patches from nvidia/ati/others because it fixes/changes parts of their server they don’t care about for their business and overall, they seem very unhelpful.
Besides, XFree86 is just the reference implementation of X11. With whatever this implies.
[1]: Red Hat, SuSE/Novell, Sun, MandrakeSoft.
i thought that X11R6 is the reference platform and XFree86 is the “working” model. Please correct me if i am wrong.
XFree86 is a fork over the X11 reference implementation. It was not developed from scratch with optimal goals, but was built on top of existing reference code.
Let’s fork the fork of the fork!
I wonder if anyone has the 4.40 mdk source rpms backed up online for others who would want to use them untill people can decided on what graphic server to use. Maybe I should download all the Xfree 4.40 related mdk source rpms from the mdk cooker site I use and back them up for later use. I have download and installed the stable 4.40 that they put out and they seem to work fine without any problems. I am running cooker and updating via urpmi and I have not seen any 4.30 rpms yet though so I’ll wait and see.
> Fork XFree86 4.4-RC2
Isn’t that Xouvert?
P.S: I’m writing this from the fd.o X server. Those shadows are nice but just VESA ATM, so it’s pretty slow.
>Isn’t that Xouvert?
Xouvert is going nowhere, sorry. After so many months they haven’t done anything important or noteworthy. The project exists just to exist.
> I’m writing this from the fd.o X server.
I installed it last week as well. Very nice work, but it is still at least 15 months before maturity and deployment status. In the meantime, big distros need something to chew on.
You can download the source and build Xfree 4.4 yourself if you want. The change in the licensing only affects those who distribute it, if I understand correctly.
I personally am anxiously awaiting the community developed forks, Xouvert in particular. I expect to see the same types of innovation that has occurred with Apache, Gnome, Reiserfs4, KDE, etc.
So long Xfree, we hardly knew you. Too bad you will go the way of the dodo.
I can deal with everything in the new license, except this:
“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 condition combined with the other 3 would say something like this:
Put our name everywhere, and our copyright so it’s visble, but you can’t use our name to promote your product unless we give permission. So imagine that when Mdk 10 comes out they wanna advertise features. My opinion is that they did this because every distribution makes some minor or major changes to X, and they don’t wanna be bothered with questions (???) when it doesn’t work properly. So, lets say that Mdk 10 will have XFree86 4.4, and XFree doesn’t give permission to Mdk to use their name to advertise features, they would have to say something like this:”Among the new features, X 4.4 is included…”. I think that they (XFree team) are wrong cracking their heads with “problems” like this, instead focusing on real issues. It is also stupid to insist that everything in a distribution should be GPL. Seeing what problems are in the OSS world, I’m sometimes tempted to return to Windows and deal with the whole mess there than having to deal with a bunch of people who just can’t get along because they have different ideals about how things should be. Anyway, on the other hand I think that Mandrakes decision is also stupid, because XFree86 is the only working OSS server at the moment, and forking it into another project is just a waste of resources.
Conclusion: This doesn’t lead to progress by no means, and in the end, if this continues to go on the OSS world will just loose. I’m not saying that they should be bether than MS or any company, but if distributions wanna have a business around OSS then they should focus on improvements instead of License Politics. I wish the XFree team the best, and I hope that a drop of wisdom will reach their brains in the end. They could also revert the license or make more compatible with OSS goals. And I think that the first 3 terms would have been enough, and they could change the 4th to something like this:
“As long as you redistribute a modified for of XFree86 you must provide a notice to the end user that it has been altered from its original form…” or something like that. Distributions have to modify de original for usually so they can fit it into their product or they include somethimes critical bugfixes, more drivers, or more fonts…or whatever.
Just my Humble Opinion.
Is it just me or is there a lot of “let’s reinvent the wheel because your license sucks” going on in the open source world?
It almost defeats the whole purpose of open source. Unfortunately, several open source licenses are incompatible with each other. The GPL is probably the worst offender when it comes to this. How many programs/libraries have been rewritten just so they can be GPL instead of BSD, MIT, or whatever? I know I’ve had to be very careful when selecting libraries for a project I’m working on, because I prefer the BSD license. GPL libraries just totally screw everything under another license up completely.
Anyway that was just a rant. In an ideal world we’d all just find a way to get along and not worry so much about licensing issues.
Hi
” GPL libraries just totally screw everything under another license up completely.”
You dont understand the issue. GPL was designed to create a foundation of solely free software which couldnt be modified to create proprietary software. BSD is compatible with GPL. Majority of free software licenses are created carefully so that they can be linked to each other. For free software licenses like GPL a library that should be linked should be GPL themselves. LGPL was created as a workaround for proprietary replacements precisely for this purpose
gnu.org/philosophy has very detailed explanations of what this all means.of course we still have problems we shouldnt in a ideal world but GPL is not the reason behind it
Jess
Most GNU libraries are licensed under the LGPL license. The terms of the LGPL license is very similar to the BSD license.
From the first post’s arhive link, if it was done mainly because of not having time that’s reasonable. But, if they’re doing it for “social/gpl” issues then that’s a sure fire way for Mandrakesoft to shoot themselves in the foot. So now they’re counting on a fork of XFree86, while other distros will move ahead. Mandrake needs to re-evalute their priorities.
Most GNU libraries are licensed under the LGPL license. The terms of the LGPL license is very similar to the BSD license.
The key is Most. I was just making a statement that there are several GNU GPL hardliners that feel that everything must be GPL including libraries and this makes it hard for the rest of us to deal with.
To Anonymous who says I don’t understand. I completely understand the GNU philosophy and I think it would be great in an ideal world. However, it is not an ideal world and I think a good summary of the difference between the GPL and LGPL/BSD/MIT schools of thought is the difference between the “peaceful coexistence” theory of communism and the “world domination” theory of communism. Before I get flamed to death for equating the GPL with communism, this is just the best analogy I could think of.
“It is also stupid to insist that everything in a distribution should be GPL.”
This is not about what is stupid or not, but about what is legal or not. Do you think Mandrake, or any other Linux distributor, wants to violate anyone’s copyrights?
The new Xfree license is not compatible with the GPL. GPL programs can not link to non-GPL compatible XFree licenses. The GPL is a copyright. Mandrake distributes GPL software. They have no choice but to abide by the GPL license on the software they distribute, otherwise they are in violation of copyright. GNOME, KDE, Icewm, Enlightenment, WindowMaker, et al, are all GPL licensed software which link to the XFree libraries. This is not just Mandrake’s issue, but EVERY Linux distributor’s issue.
“who just can’t get along because they have different ideals about how things should be.”
It is not about people who can not get along. It is about aknowledging the GPL license, which many developers have chosen to copyright their programs under, and it was their right to assign whatever copyright license that they chose.
“This doesn’t lead to progress by no means, and in the end, if this continues to go on the OSS world will just loose.”
No, the OSS world loses if the copyrights on software are ignored. And it will lead to progress. There are already other X11 implementations out there waiting in the wings, that have been under development for some time now.
“distributions wanna have a business around OSS then they should focus on improvements instead of License Politics”
The distributions are covering their behinds by paying attention to copyright law and the licenses on the software they distribute.
Other distros are moving ahead. Fedora, Redhat, Debian, Gentoo, OpenBSD are all not using XFree86 4.4 because of this
sorry, I ment aren’t moving ahead
You dont understand the issue. GPL was designed to create a foundation of solely free software which couldnt be modified to create proprietary software. BSD is compatible with GPL.
No, actually we understand the issue just fine. We don’t want program X (no pun intended) to be under, say, the BSD license. A GPL library is therefore useless. An LGPL library is better, but not as good as using a BSD license because it still prevents creating static binaries.
If you look at many of the large standard library projects such as the excellent Boost C++ libraries, you’ll see that code committed can be under any license so long as it maintains freedom for derived works to be relicensed under any license of the users choice. This is basically the same as the BSD license.
The GPL, on the other hand, is almost a shared source license. You can do anything you want with the code so long as you *don’t* change the license (and as a result you must also give your code away). It’s incompatible with EVERYTHING. Mandrake and the GPL people are being *very* hipocritical here. If I ever release non-BSD code, as a joke I’ll release it as MGPL, the GPL with GPL replaced with MGPL. Code under this license would fullfill the FSF’s silly 4 freedoms, yet it would *not* be compatable with the GPL. Ironically, it *would* still be usable with the BSD license!
We don’t want program X
Should be We want program X
X”Free”86 is soon to be irrelevant. It’s really a shame that they’ve done this to themselves. At the same time, it’s not like there aren’t going to be better alternatives in the near future.
As far as big distributions “need[ing] something to chew on,” I can’t see what the problem with sticking with 4.3 or 4.4rc2(?) until something better matures over the next six months. It’s one of those things that seems like it should be a non-issue.
The XFree86 project has f*cked itself, and life goes on.
Well said A.K.H.! Glad to see I’m not the only one who takes the time to think about licensing instead of just swallowing down FSF drivel wholesale. I’m afraid that alot of programmers choose the GPL just because it’s the “cool” thing to do without even carefully considering all the options and deciding what THEIR philosophy is. I’m not saying that everyone chooses the GPL for this reason, but I’m afraid that too many people do. Also, there are several projects out there who have as their main purpose and selling point the fact that they are a GPL-licensed clone of programX which uses some other inferior license.
Hi
”
The GPL, on the other hand, is almost a shared source license. You can do anything you want with the code so long as you *don’t* change the license (and as a result you must also give your code away). It’s incompatible with EVERYTHING. Mandrake and the GPL people are being *very* hipocritical here”
Comparing GPL to shared source clearly shows how much you understand both. GPL is meant to create an exclusive world of free software. BSD is almost public domain.
Mandrake is not hypocritical at all. They are just careful not to violate a license.
This has nothing to do with GPL people whatever you mean by that. again understand the issue first before you talk about it.
Absolutely no distribution is bunding xfree86 4.4 because of this. not just mandrake.
regards
Rahul
“An LGPL library is better, but not as good as using a BSD license because it still prevents creating static binaries.”
Uh, sorry to inform you that OpenBSD will not be using the new XFree either:
From: Theo de Raadt <deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org>
Like other projects, we will not be incorporating new code from David
Dawes into the XFree86 codebase used in OpenBSD. All such changes
have to be skipped, rewritten, or you can contact the XFree86 group
and place your own efforts to repair this damage.
“I’m afraid that alot of programmers choose the GPL just because it’s the “cool” thing to do without even carefully considering all the options and deciding what THEIR philosophy is.”
Hardly. These programmers are very well aware of the licensing and have good reasons for the licenses they choose. Do you seriously think IBM would have released JFS under a BSD license, so that SCO, Sun or Microsoft could then take the code, make some minor tweaks, if any, then turn around and charge people an arm and a leg for it? IBM was well aware that the GPL license was the safest choice, since it would insure the playing field remained level, and no other company could fork their work, make it propietary and turn a profit at IBM’s expense.
The GPL is used by programmers who want their code and the derivatives of their code to remain “Free”. When a coder contributes software to the community, not all of them intend their code to be modified, or extended and/or then closed to be resold as proprietary and commercial software by some opportunists.
The GPL license protects free software coders from such opportunists. The BSD license doesn’t. Those who don’t care what becomes of their code opt for the BSD license. Does who want their code and its derivatives to remain free software can use the GPL.
Surely, the adopters of either licenses know what they are doing. Even Linus acknowledges Linux wouldn’t be where it is today had it not been for the GNU GPL license.
Many open source coders opt for the GPL license because it ensures that contributions, extensions and modifications made to their software is given back to the community, or remains “free”. Not necessarily because it is cool, like someone above mentioned.
Eugenia wrote:
I installed it last week as well. Very nice work, but it is still at least 15 months before maturity and deployment status.
This makes me wonder…wouldn’t it be a wise move for IBM (or OSDL, or other Linux players) to fund and/or lend manpower to the fd.o effort? If they want to enhance Desktop Linux, wouldn’t it make sense to help build a better X for it, since a lot of the Desktop “experience” depends on X?
Just a thought…
Uh, sorry to inform you that OpenBSD will not be using the new XFree either:
So? That has nothing to do with the sentence you quoted. BSD code can likely be linked to 4.4 without any legal problems. However, GNOME and the other GPL programs can’t which is why no distribution is using XFree86 4.4. I’m not promoting the new XFree license here, rather the BSD license.
I honestly find this kind of funny, because people who use BSD or simlar licenses encounter this kind of incompatability with GPL libraries quite often. Now the GPL programmers are encountering it. Well, it’s XFree86’s choice, just like it’s people’s choice to use the GPL. Don’t like it don’t use it, just as I don’t use GPL libraries in my programs.
“wouldn’t it make sense to help build a better X for it, since a lot of the Desktop “experience” depends on X?”
Or just finish the Direct Frame Buffer would be enough for me. It is fast enough as it is, but would be really nice to finish the OpenGL extensions now.
However, it is not an ideal world and I think a good summary of the difference between the GPL and LGPL/BSD/MIT schools of thought is the difference between the “peaceful coexistence” theory of communism and the “world domination” theory of communism.
This is OT and might get modded down, but I couldn’t help but think that the only way that the “peaceful coexistence” theory of communism could work was if there was a “peaceful coexistence” theory of capitalism…and I don’t think there’s such a thing.
Seriously, bad analogies aside, it’s wrong to lump the philosophy behind the LGPL along with that of the BSD/MIT “school of thought”, because the LGPL is closer to the GPL than it is of those other licenses. True, it is friendlier non-copyleft free licenses (and even commercial licenses) in the sense that it allows linking, but apart from this exception it’s pretty much the same as the LGPL (i.e. you cannot “unfree” LGPLed software by making a proprietary derivative).
Do you seriously think IBM would have released JFS under a BSD license, so that SCO, Sun or Microsoft could then take the code, make some minor tweaks, if any, then turn around and charge people an arm and a leg for it? IBM was well aware that the GPL license was the safest choice, since it would insure the playing field remained level, and no other company could fork their work, make it propietary and turn a profit at IBM’s expense.
The fact that the kernel that they were targetting this code for is GPL might have influenced them just a tad too. Besides, IBM has their own open source license, so obviously the GPL isn’t a blanket solution for all of IBM’s open sourced intellectual property. Check out http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ibmpl.php for more information on the IBM Public License.
“That has nothing to do with the sentence you quoted. BSD code can likely be linked to 4.4 without any legal problems. However, GNOME and the other GPL programs can’t”
Exactly! So for servers it wouldn’t matter whether the BSDs have KDE, GNOME, Enlightenment or WindowMaker anyway, should the BSDS include XFree 4.4. But it might make a difference to those using BSD on the desktop, if XFree 4.4 were included, but the GPL desktops & window managers were not.
The code base for a graphics system must be under the GPL, anything else is ineffective. The GPL is the only license that can assure that third parties (governments, monopolies) don’t institute anti-competitive laws and patents. The code has to be open and accessible, it should also be well documented. Anything less is a liability.
“However, it is not an ideal world and I think a good summary of the difference between the GPL and LGPL/BSD/MIT schools of thought is the difference between the “peaceful coexistence” theory of communism and the “world domination” theory of communism.”
People always want to argue over the licenses, whether it be GPL, BSD or some other, as if it is the fault of the license that it was chosen. Why not take it up with the authors of the software instead, as has been done with XFree 4.4?
Are you saying that GPL programs must be linked to GPL libraries? That doesn’t sound right…
Well, it’s XFree86’s choice, just like it’s people’s choice to use the GPL. Don’t like it don’t use it, just as I don’t use GPL libraries in my programs.
The problem is, no one will be using XFree86 now, and so they will have shot themselves in the foot.
I’m a bit disappointed that this is turning into another “GPL vs. BSD” thread – especially since the new XFree86 license is actually retrograde in comparison to the BSD license: it introduces requirements that were dropped from the BSD license a couple of years ago.
This seems like some sort of anti-GPL vendetta by Dawes, and it looks as if it’s backfiring.
[i]Or just finish the Direct Frame Buffer would be enough for me.
Sorry, I need network transparency.
The code base for a graphics system must be under the GPL, anything else is ineffective. The GPL is the only license that can assure that third parties (governments, monopolies) don’t institute anti-competitive laws and patents. The code has to be open and accessible, it should also be well documented. Anything less is a liability.
You do realize that the reason we use the X Window System on UNIX instead of NeWS or Display PostScript IS the MIT license. The reason we use TCP/IP is the BSD license. Commercial usage and enhancement of your code is not the enemy everybody seems to think it is. If you need a standard to become widely implemented, it MUST be under BSD/MIT or similar licenses, anything else is ineffective.
A GPL-licensed graphics system will be ignored by the general public because commercial vendors won’t touch it and the limited amount of graphics card vendor support that XFree86 enjoys would dry up verrry quickly.
The GPL is a great choice for something like a text editor or a compiler, but not for the creation of open standards.
The new Xfree license is not compatible with the GPL. GPL programs can not link to non-GPL compatible XFree licenses. The GPL is a copyright. Mandrake distributes GPL software. They have no choice but to abide by the GPL license on the software they distribute, otherwise they are in violation of copyright. GNOME, KDE, Icewm, Enlightenment, WindowMaker, et al, are all GPL licensed software which link to the XFree libraries. This is not just Mandrake’s issue, but EVERY Linux distributor’s issue.
Well, then according to you, closed source applications could never be written that run on top of XFree86. To be more to the point, as long as the XFree86 license allows applications to be written that run on it without requiring those applications themselves to take on the XFree86 license, then how would any change to that license be incompatible with the GPL? Otherwise, it would probably be considered derivative and couldn’t be released under the GPL anyway. And as far as license compatibility is concerned, I could write an application and release MY code under the GPL, even if a library I used was proprietary and not “free.” I’ll say it again, this is the kind of nonsense that occurs when an ideology is the basis for judging what is “good” and what is “bad” in a software distribution.
The GPL is used by programmers who want their code and the derivatives of their code to remain “Free”.
Well then it’s not REALLY free is it? But of course this has been pointed out and debated many times over, hasn’t it?
Howdy
Does anyone know a link to an explanation of why they have changed the license?
It almost seems like they`re trying to get people not to use X esp after all the kerfuffle over the core team not allowing development, the core team leaving and individuals wanting to make the X development process more open.
“I’ll say it again, this is the kind of nonsense that occurs when an ideology is the basis for judging what is “good” and what is “bad” in a software distribution. ”
Copyright law and license are not ideology. Why can’t you make 1,000,000 copies of Windows XP and sell them on the street? You would be violating two things:
1. Copyright law
2. The license on the software
The license and copyright of the GPL is the same.
It has nothing to do with ideology, but is a legal matter.
“However, GNOME and the other GPL programs can’t which is why no distribution is using XFree86 4.4.”
GNOME isn’t GPL. It’s LGPL. Ergo, GNOME is still fine.
However, KDE and the Qt libs ARE GPL, and this screws them good. I don’t use KDE, but I’d like the option, and this prevents me from doing so.
I’m going to give Mr. Dawes the benefit of the doubt, and assume he didn’t quite understand the ramifications of the license change in terms of GPL compatibility. There is still time for a change, and hopefully he’ll do the right thing.
Like Eugenia theorized, I see a temporary fork as a stop-gap measure for the distro vendors to keep things from getting too crazy while they try to convince Mr. Dawes that not caring about the GPL-compat issues will kill XF86 dead.
It’s a crazy damned day when RMS sounds like the sane one in the discussion.
-Erwos
Those who are screaming that this being an incompatible license means that you can’t run KDE or other GPL licensed programs on it are wrong. The GPL requires the programs you link to the GPL program by GPL compatible, not the other way around.
Case in point: Mac OS X shipped with several GPL utilies in verison 10.0, long before Apple produced a GPL-compatible version of the Apple Public Source License. These programs had to link to non-GPL’d system libraries just to run. Of course, Apple couldn’t then link any of its programs to the GPL’d programs without GPL’ing them.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200401/msg00…
GNOME software are GPL. However, many of the free software libraries that GNOME uses, like GTK+, are under the LGPL license.
What does copying making copies of Windows XP in violation of Microsoft’s EULA have to do with a Linux distribution not including a version of XFree86 because they disagree with the license it is released under???
Version 1.1 of XFree86 Project License.
Copyright (C) 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:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer.
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.
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.
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.
Where in there does it say I cannot use, copy or modify XFree86 under this new license? NOWHERE. All it says is that I have to include this license with with source and binary distribution, that I have to acknowledge that it came from the XFree86 Project, and that I have to get permission to use their name to help sell or advertise my distribution that uses it. So how does this violate the GPL for software that runs on XFree and explain to me why this isn’t yet again just another example of one group of free software “wackos” getting into a pissing match with another group.
The GPL requires the programs you link to the GPL program by GPL compatible, not the other way around.
Exactly. The thing that irks me about many GPL critics is that they don’t seem to fully understand the license. They cry fould because of ideology, quite often without realizing that their own choice to reject the BSD is ideological as well.
But let’s not turn this into another BSD vs. GPL thread, please! The new XFree86 license is not like the present BSD license, which is GPL-compatible. And it looks as if most distros – in addition to OpenBSD – will not switch to XFree86 4.4. This is the subject we should discuss: one more step in the virtual self-sabotage of the most common X framework for Linux.
Again, I think this should be a clear signal to IBM and the other big Linux player to provide money and/or manpower to fd.o’s own X server project.
So how does this violate the GPL for software that runs on XFree and explain to me why this isn’t yet again just another example of one group of free software “wackos” getting into a pissing match with another group.
You do know that BSD dropped the “advertising” clause from its license, do you?
Rather than try to turn this into another flamewar, perhaps you should read this:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
It explains the issue quite well.
You don’t have to seek permission, for anything, to use a GPL compatible code. You can even sell GPL software, like the commercial distros have been doing for years without permission from the original authors.
Xfree86 introduces all sorts of hooplas to many commercial and non commercial distribution. For example, your favorite distro can not advertise that it uses the latest release of Xfree86. That, I think, is GPL incompatible.
I have no interest in or concern for what the FSF and GNU tell me I should do or what I should think is good or bad. If the new XFree86 license does not violate the GPL (applications that run on XFree86 that are licensed under the GPL) then who the heck am I to criticize or chastise the XFree86 Project for the license they choose to use for their software? Again, to me, this all boils down to “I don’t like their license, so I’m not going to use their software.”
Xfree86 introduces all sorts of hooplas to many commercial and non commercial distribution. For example, your favorite distro can not advertise that it uses the latest release of Xfree86. That, I think, is GPL incompatible.
What does this have to do with the license that applications are released under? Even if you couldn’t put a sticker on the box saying that MY LINUX DISTRIBUTION includes XFree86 4.4 (which I highly doubt is the intent), then that has nothing to do with the license of the software IN the box… Just because you think it is not compatible doesn’t make it so.
You can’t understand the GPL license if you don’t know the objective of the FSF and the GNU. After all, the GPL is a GNU license.
The bottom line is that, the new Xfree86 license may be restrictive for distributors to use.
Oh and, the license clearly states that you must have permission to use the name of the XFree86 Project, Inc. in your advertising. It says nothing about requiring permissions to advertise that you are using their product (XFree86).
I have no interest in or concern for what the FSF and GNU tell me I should do or what I should think is good or bad.
You should still read the article rather than dismiss it offhand. It explains why the advertising clause is a bad decision. If you’ve got a closed mind, then you’re no better than the “zealots” you decry.
If the new XFree86 license does not violate the GPL (applications that run on XFree86 that are licensed under the GPL) then who the heck am I to criticize or chastise the XFree86 Project for the license they choose to use for their software?
Well, apparently, the new XFree86 licensing does clash with the GPL. Otherwise, I don’t think all of the major distros would reject it like that – after all, distro makers aren’t GPL fanatics – many include non-GPL apps in their Linux distributions.
Rather than use this thread as a pulpit for anti-FSF and anti-GPL advocacy, shouldn’t we discuss the wisdom of such a decision for XFree86? Do you think it’s such a good idea to sabotage your project like they seem to be doing?
The GPL is a copyright license. It is a legal document that software authors have released their programs under. The legal documet outlines the terms and conditions under which the software may be distrbituted, in the exact same way that Microsoft, Sun, or IBM outline the terms under which their software may or may not be used. The new XFree license is incompatible with the GPL license.
I am sorry that you think Mandrake, Redhat, Debian, & OpenBSD, etc are all whacko. I suppose Alan Cox is a whacko too, since he specifically requested that XFree not change the license on the contributions he made to XFree. But regardless of what YOU may think, none of these groups will be distributing the new XFree 4.4 with this new license. The advertising clause seems to be the main sticking point.
Forking XFree has been under discussion for almost a year now. Why do you think projects like Xouvert & FreeDesktop exist? I wonder if it might have anything at all to do with how XFree has been handling things, LONG before this license change. Why have hardware manufacturers had to wait so long for their drivers to be integrated into Xfree up to this point? Why have so many developers left Xfree this past year? I think these might be much for productive questions to have answered, than to sit around labelling these extremely talented developers and companies as “whacko.”
It all boils down to this: If you don’t like the GPL don’t release software under that license or use software released under that license. If you don’t like the new Xfree license, don’t release code under that license, or use code under that license.
What does this have to do with the license that applications are released under?
Nothing.
Even if you couldn’t put a sticker on the box saying that MY LINUX DISTRIBUTION includes XFree86 4.4 (which I highly doubt is the intent),[i]
Read the license again.
[i]then that has nothing to do with the license of the software IN the box..
Nobody said it did. If, however, I want to give a copy of Xfree86 to a friend, I need to do a bunch of stuff outline in the license, including contact the The Xfree86 Project Inc.
Just because you think it is not compatible doesn’t make it so.
Don’t listen to me. To ascertain if it is GPL compatible or not, try reading the GNU and FSF website.
This reason was given on the Cooker list, in addition to the new license likely being not compatible with the GPL:
The practical problem is that Mandrake needs to modify a lot of files/documentation to comply with this license. It’s a bit late for that in the 10.0 release cycle.
So the main reason why Mandrake 10 will (officially) have Xfree86 4.3 is because of the burdensome requirements of the new license.
What does this have to do with the license that applications are released under?
Nothing.
Even if you couldn’t put a sticker on the box saying that MY LINUX DISTRIBUTION includes XFree86 4.4 (which I highly doubt is the intent),
Read the license again.
then that has nothing to do with the license of the software IN the box..
Nobody said it did. If, however, I want to give a copy of Xfree86 to a friend, I need to do a bunch of stuff outline in the license, including contact the The Xfree86 Project Inc.
Just because you think it is not compatible doesn’t make it so.
Don’t listen to me. To ascertain if it is GPL compatible or not, try reading the GNU and FSF website.
I have read it, and it seems to be a position made more out of convenience than of any real philosophical reason. I’m not bashing the FSF or the GPL per se, but I don’t agree with this notion that everything should revolve around the GPL and that everything else should be obliged to conform to it or be shunned.
“but I don’t agree with this notion that everything should revolve around the GPL and that everything else should be obliged to conform to it or be shunned.”
The point is not to make everyone conform. The point is to honor the license under which the author released the code and respect his/her copyright. That is all. Watch what happens with X this year. I think we will all be amazed. This is a VERY good thing.
The problem is not ideological. The XFree licence is now incompatible with GPL, and QT3 libs are linked to XFree. Thus you cannot compile QT3 against XFree 4.4, no distribution can legally do it.
Fedora and Debian have pointed it out and took the same decision. Moreover, RMS is working with XFree devs to try to make the licence compatible again (see their mailing-list).
So stop to make ideological comments : it is only a LEGAL issue.
It’s quite a technical issue it seems. I could use some help to understand where the incompatibility occurs. This thread shows that I am not the only one to be confused
Yes, it would be nicer if everyone would use a simpler license.
Enough sbout the xfree license i am sure there is more to talk about with Mandrake 10..
Has anybody already USED mandrake?
Please share your experiences with us about the speed/stability and its looks..
“Other distros are moving ahead. Fedora, Redhat, Debian, Gentoo, OpenBSD are all not using XFree86 4.4 because of this”
True. They could use a late 4.4 RC though.
Here are some sources…
RedHat: http://freedesktop.org/pipermail/x-packagers/2004-February/000004.h…
Debian: http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=97067&cid=8297614 (note these links also have additional comments about questionable parts of the XFree86 source regarding licensing)
OpenBSD: http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=97067&threshold=1&co…
Couldn’t find a source for SuSE, Gentoo and other *BSD’s.
Mandrake isn’t alone. Mandrake just got mentioned on Slashdot as one who acts upon this new license. Others do too; additional replies covered that up.
After installing this release I can’t boot it. I get an error about filesystem being unclean (though the partition was made from within mdk installer) and I can’t fix it, boot it.
The partition mounts perfectly in BeOS and LindowsOS though.
With beta2 the installer crashed during LILO setup in the installation.
http://qa.mandrakesoft.com/
This page is your friend. Please, report that bug and include every detail about it and about your hardware.
Have you tried kernel 2.4? What kind of filesystem have you used (ext3, ReiserFS)?
but I don’t agree with this notion that everything should revolve around the GPL and that everything else should be obliged to conform to it or be shunned.
Well, like it or not, the new XFree86 license appears to be incompatible with it, so the distro makers really don’t have a choice from a legal point of view.
As far as Mandrake 10 is concerned, I’m running parts of cooker now and it runs quite well, though I’ve had to adjust to a few changes in the way the hardware is managed. And of course a few bugs once in a while. But otherwise it’s shaping up to be a mighty fine distro.
Gentoo still has RC2 in portage, though it has recently become rather insistent that I drop back to 4.3.0.
(Sorry for the double post, I should have thought to check this first.)
Gentoo is indeed holding at RC2 while they work out a solution. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/15996
Hi
The advertising claus was specifically removed from the origianl bsd license to be compatible with gpl so they can be distributed together
the new xfree86 license introduces such a claus and hence it is not compatible. this is why none of the distributions can include the software in a LEGAL manner
there is obsolutely nothing philosophical about it. if you want to distribute gpl’ed software with other software then they should be compatible with gpl. this is a legal license requirement and regardless of whether you agree with it you will have to follow the license. very simple
regards
Jess
Donnie B. wrote today on gentoo-devel:
“””
We won’t be adding versions of XFree86 with the 1.1 license [1] to the
tree, so don’t be surprised when 4.3.99.903 doesn’t show up with the new
license.
I won’t elaborate on the reasons because it’s been discussed quite
thoroughly in other forums [2-8].
We are seeking solutions/alternatives for this issue, so you can sit
back, relax and let us do the dirty work.
“””
the new xfree86 license introduces such a claus and hence it is not compatible. this is why none of the distributions can include the software in a LEGAL manner
there is obsolutely nothing philosophical about it. if you want to distribute gpl’ed software with other software then they should be compatible with gpl. this is a legal license requirement and regardless of whether you agree with it you will have to follow the license. very simple
So now this has turned into an issue where software that is not GPL “compatible” cannot even be distributed with GPL’d software, whether it is linked to or derived from or not?
These explanations seem to get more ridiculous as this thread goes on.
XFree to commercial linux distro’s: dude, you just got punk’d.
Couldn’t resist.
-Flecko
Hi
So now this has turned into an issue where software that is not GPL “compatible” cannot even be distributed with GPL’d software, whether it is linked to or derived from or not?
These explanations seem to get more ridiculous as this thread goes on.
”
Did you bother to read the gpl license before commenting on my explanation. please go read the license before talking on this.
Jess
BSD changed their license so that it could be compatible with the GPL. This should give you a hint…
May I suggest that you should learn a bit more about how the GPL before commenting on this issue?
@ jc thanks for the link
@ jimbo what about this post:
“As the Debian developers have noticed, the new Xfree86 license is incompatible with the GPL. It has to do with the specific requirements about including notices in manuals and documentation. The incompatibility means that linking GPL-covered applications with an Xlib that has this requirement would violate the GPL.
The general intention of this requirement does not conflict with the GPL — for instance, the revised BSD license says something basically similar in a way that is compatible with the GPL. The conflict comes from the specific details of the requirement. The revised BSD license is less specific, so one that simply including the license along with the program satisfies its notification requirement.
http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-February/003974.html
In some futher replies even more licensing problems are pointed out. Also see the Debian link i posted earlier with analysis from Branden.
FWIW, I have rc1 installed. Very nice actually. I’ve been running Suse 9 for awhile after abandoning Mandrake & Fedora. This is a nice release so far. No show stoppers yet, excellent performance & very nice looking. Sound & usb are good so far with 2.6.2. On a laptop here.
VSW
HI
Many people think that people who want free software to be gpl compatible are gnu fantatics or some such things. in reality there are very important reasons to consider this
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html
Please read the above and understand the issue before you on talk on this
regards
Jess
While the STREIGHT GNU cersion of the LGPL will not allow static linking for proprietary use there are versions of it that WILL. these are:
The WxWindows License.
The FLTK License (For the Fast Light Tool Kit)
The FreePascal License.
All of these use the GNU-LGPL as their base but go on to spacifically allow static linking in proprietary projects.