XFree86 Licences [was: Re: [plug] Debian VS Mandrake]

[Cameron Patrick]

James Devenish wrote:

| [Suggests that the only change is an advertising clause]
| Is that all?

Essentially, yes.  I'll trot out the same link I did in February:

        http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00162.html

The X-Oz licence mentioned in that post is identical to the new
XFree86 licence.

For reference, the old and new licences themselves can be found at:

        http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licenses.html

That's one of the changes and is a big problem -- advertising clauses
aren't GPL-compatible (as the GPL doesn't permit adding restrictions
other than those imposed by the GPL itself).  Branden (who has a
tendency to jump on anything even slightly restrictive and call it
"non-free") seemed to think that both the advertising clause and the
don't-abuse-our-name clause, as they appear in the XFree86 licence,
are not Free, because they contaminate other software.

Cameron.