[plug] Y-Windows project back in gear

[Cameron Patrick]

sscott at iinet.net.au wrote:

| 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?

(Ignoring the GPL incompatibility for now which others have already
commenting on...)

One of the new clauses isn't so much about stopping people "claiming
that they wrote XFree86" but requiring "prior written authorization from
The XFree86 Project, Inc" to use the name XFree86 in advertising "or
other dealings in this Software".  This is different from the old BSD
advertising clause (which says, essentially, 'give me credit in your
propaganda').

Some people in the Debian project consider the licence to be non-free.
Quoting from this post:
	http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200402/msg00162.html

	[...] it seems to forbid publishing a magazine review of works
	so covered without prior written permission -- at least if one
	wants to name the copyright holder of the work one is using.

	Such a broad restriction is probably not legal, and certainly
	violative of the principles of free speech which inform and
	underlie our concept of Free Software.

	Consequently, because it contaminates works of a wholly
	independent nature, this clause fails DFSG 9, and renders the
	license non-DFSG-free even if clause 3 doesn't.

Another mail from Branden Robinson (the Debian X maintainer) with gory
details of the XFree86 4.3 licences is at:

	http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/debian-x-200402/msg00143.html

Cameron.