[plug] Why XFree86 Licence 1.1 is a problem (was: Y-Windows)

[Cameron Patrick]

Leon Brooks wrote:

| The FSF are apparently not viewing this with any great alarm, and it 
| seems likely that GPLv3, when it happens, is likely to specifically 
| allow for the option of this restriction.

Although amusingly, if the GPLv3 includes some of the problematic
clauses that the GFDL ("Free Documentation License") does, Debian will
probably declare it to be non-free anyway.  A lot of Debian developers
already want to remove the /documentation/ for some GNU software as it
is licensed under the non-free GFDL, and rms disagrees with a number of
debian-legal people about what is and isn't acceptable in a "free"
licence.  As far as I know, nothing has been removed yet (it has been
postponed until after the sarge release) but Debian being what it is, it
wouldn't surprise me if they /do/ move the affected docs to the non-free
section unless GNU changes the licence.

Cameron.