On Feb 10, Don Sanders wrote: > Secondly I showed him Andreas Pour's XFree license comment, which contains a > copy of the Xfree license: > http://lists.kde.org/?/=kde-licensing&m=94950776505271&w=2 > > * He agreed that software licensees have no inherent right to relicense > software under a more restrictive license. > > * He agreed that one could not relicense software under the XFree license+++ > under the GPL, as the XFree license prohibits this. [...] > +++ The XFree license allows sublicensing under certain conditions.
I don't think you would have any right to relicense software you didn't write. I think the issue is whether or not a derived work incorporating part of the XFree86-licensed code can be licensed under the GPL (or any other license that doesn't contradict the terms of the XFree86 license), and I don't see anyone here arguing that it can't. (Having said that, Debian's XFree86 implementation includes code under 6 separate licenses, 3 of which are identical in their substance, varying only in who they indemnify; 5 of these licenses are propogated from upstream.) If this were not the case, then Sun, HP, et al. could not bundle a proprietary X implementation (including closed-source X servers) with their operating systems. Chris -- ============================================================================= | Chris Lawrence | You have a computer. Do you have Linux? | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://www.linux-m68k.org/index.html | | | | | Debian Developer | Visit the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5: | | http://www.debian.org/ | <*> http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/ <*> | =============================================================================
