[plug] Y-Windows project back in gear

[Sham Chukoury]

On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 09:22, sscott at iinet.net.au wrote:

<snip>

> Was this prompted by XFree86's license mods? I saw that a lot of the major 
> distros arent shipping 4.4 due to this.
> 
> What's the big deal anyway? Are people having problems with the notion that 
> they cant claim they wrote XFree86, or is this a more technical licensing issue?

Me (eleusis) discussing the issue on #hurd (Freenode) a few days ago:

Feb 17 10:09:45 <eleusis>       hmm
Feb 17 10:09:57 <eleusis>       i don't really see how the new X license
makes it non free :P
Feb 17 10:10:13 <marcus>        it's not non-free, I guess
Feb 17 10:10:19 <marcus>        it is just stupid and obnoxious
Feb 17 10:10:28 <ajmitch_>      eleusis: not gpl-compatible, by adding
restrictions on section things
Feb 17 10:10:36 <ajmitch_>      not necessarily non-free :)
Feb 17 10:10:40 <eleusis>       i see :|
Feb 17 10:11:09 <eleusis>       but gpl compatibility has little to do
with mandrake's decision, hasn't it..
Feb 17 10:11:11 <ajmitch_>      however if it's not gpl-compatible, then
gpl apps technically cannot link with xlibs without an exception
Feb 17 10:11:18 <ajmitch_>      so no GPLed X apps
Feb 17 10:11:19 <eleusis>       ah
Feb 17 10:11:30 <ajmitch_>      I believe that's the problem with
openssl as well
Feb 17 10:11:38 <eleusis>       is that a condition of the gpl? :P
Feb 17 10:11:55 <eleusis>       that gpl'd apps can't link to
non-gpl-compatible libs?
Feb 17 10:12:09 <ajmitch_>      a condition of the gpl is that there
can't be other restrictions added
Feb 17 10:12:16 <eleusis>       i see
Feb 17 10:12:34 <ajmitch_>      I'd have to read up on the licenses to
be even vaguely sure :)
Feb 17 10:13:24 <eleusis>      
http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licenses.html
Feb 17 10:14:17 <ajmitch_>      yes, I've read it :)
Feb 17 10:14:44 <eleusis>       as far as i can see, they simply added
requirements that the license be more visible, along with a beefed up
disclaimer :P
Feb 17 10:14:44 -->     moritz_ (moritz at 20-8.stw.uni-duisburg.de) has
joined #hurd
Feb 17 10:15:05 <ajmitch_>      however as xlibs is usually distributed
with the distribution, it may be a loophole there
Feb 17 10:15:17 <ajmitch_>      eleusis: and that restriction in the
license is a problem
Feb 17 10:15:35 <eleusis>       which restriction, specifically? :P
Feb 17 10:15:45 <ajmitch_>      item 3 in the new X license
Feb 17 10:15:51 <--     moritz has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection
reset by peer))
Feb 17 10:16:02 <eleusis>       uh huh
Feb 17 10:16:04 <ajmitch_>      there's a difference between a polite
request & a legal requirement :)
Feb 17 10:16:12 <eleusis>       yeah
Feb 17 10:16:40 <bddebian>      Damnit people, don't make mee check out
another project... :-(
Feb 17 10:17:10 <eleusis>       still, i reckon that mandrake went back
to XF86 4.3 simply because it was too late in their release cycle to do
the changes to comply with the new X license :P
Feb 17 10:17:29 <bddebian>      Mandark??  What the hell is that?? :-)
Feb 17 10:17:40 <ajmitch_>     
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD
Feb 17 10:17:50 <ajmitch_>      the gpl faq covers some of the issues
Feb 17 10:18:08 <ajmitch_>     
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
Feb 17 10:18:09 <ajmitch_>      :)
Feb 17 10:18:42 <eleusis>       ah, right
Feb 17 10:18:46 <eleusis>       advertising -_-
Feb 17 10:19:48 <ajmitch_>      the orig bsd clause is different from
that in the new xfree86 license
Feb 17 10:19:59 <ajmitch_>      but afaik it's still a problem :)
Feb 17 10:20:30 <ajmitch_>      anyway, usual disclaimers about not
being a lawyer...
Feb 17 10:21:01 <eleusis>       yes yes :)


§:)