On Mon, Jul 05, 2004 at 11:33:55AM -0400, Chris Metzler wrote: > On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 20:13:17 +0200 > David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I (think I) have read the previous thread about the license change, but > > probably not good enough. Would someone care to explain to me what > > exactly is the fuss about the license change? I understand that XFree86 > > has the exception that you cannot "claim that you wrote it", right? Why > > does that make XFree86 non-DFSG compliant? > > I'm not sufficiently comfortable with my knowledge of the DFSG to > argue why the new XF86 license is not considered to be DFSG-compliant. > For that, I'd recommend checking the archives of the debian-legal > mailing list. This was discussed in great detail over a period of > several months there. > > In general, the claim has *not* been that the new license change makes > XFree86 non-free. The claim has been that the new license change > makes XFree86 incompatible with the GPL. Those two statements are not > the same: at > > http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html > > you'll find a long list of licenses which the FSF thinks are free > software licenses, but some of which are not compatible with the GPL. > Note that I am not, myself, saying that the new XFree86 license is > incompatible with the GPL (I feel too ignorant of the details of > things to say); I'm merely repeating that that's what the objection > to it is.
Ah! > Why does this matter? It matters when you take a module which is > covered by a license that isn't compatible with the GPL, and create > a larger chunk-o-software by combining it with a module that's > covered by the GPL. How do you license that new application in a > way that doesn't violate the terms of one of the component licenses? > For example, the claim is made that under the terms of the new > XFree86 license, any Linux distribution that built and distributed > GNOME would effectively be breaking copyright law, since either > the XFree86 license or the GPL would have to be violated in so > doing. > > In other words (to summarize), it's not that some people think the new > XFree86 license makes it no longer free software; it's that some people > think that the new XFree86 license creates legal issues when linked > with the GPL'd software packages (e.g. libraries) that predominate in > Linux distributions. > > Not surprisingly, the XFree86 folks (e.g. project leader David Dawes) > disagree with this assessment of things. Since the lawyers with FSF > (e.g. Eben Moglen of Columbia University) assert that there *is* a > problem, I tend to suspect the FSF is correct; but IANAL. But the > XFree86 folks also make the argument that there are other common > components of the typical Linux distribution that should cause > similar complaints about incompatible licensing, if that's really what > the problem is. > > So that's the licensing bit. Some people (both for *and* against > dumping XFree86) feel that the real issues here are long-standing > complaints against the XFree86 Organization and how it's managed, > how new patches/updates are or are not considered, etc., and that > the licensing issues are either a smokescreen or the straw that > broke the camel's back. Again, you'll have to make up your own > mind about that point of view. Thanks! That clears up a lot. Now I understand why there can be licensing issues while XFree86 can still be free. David -- Hi! I'm a .signature virus. Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
