retitle 289334 xserver-xfree86: [pci] erroneously detects multiple instances of the same display adapter tag 289334 = upstream thanks
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 03:25:14PM +0000, Richard Mortimer wrote: > Package: xserver-xfree86 > Version: 4.3.0.dfsg.1-10 > Severity: important > Tags: patch > > XFree86 refuses to run on my old Pentium desktop. It finds multiple > copies of my video card all but one of which are clearly bogus (they > have a PCI id that doesn't exist on the box). [...] > I had a look at the latest sources on xfree86.org and found a fix exists > in revision 1.86 of > http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/bus/Pci.c I'm sorry, but I cannot apply this patch. Please come up with a plain text description of the patch, as described below. I obviously cannot write a new patch myself, as you have exposed me to the tainted code. [This is a form letter.] Some people are not aware that code such as bugfixes cannot easily be shared from the XFree86 CVS repository without subjecting users of that code to a new license, the "XFree86 1.1 License", which has been rejected as unacceptable (due primarily but not solely to incompatibility with the GNU General Public License) by most major Free Software and Open Source operating system vendors. There has been some question in the community as to whether the new license applies to changes incorporated into the XFree86 CVS repository after 13 February 2004, when the relicensing was implemented. It is not known whether XFree86 automatically applies the new license to code, such as bugfixes, submitted to them by third parties. David Dawes, the President of the XFree86 Project, Inc., has asserted on the XFree86 "devel" mailing list that: Assume that anything attributed to me is covered by the 1.1 licence unless explicitly stated otherwise.[1] To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Dawes has never made an explicit statement otherwise under any circumstances. Furthermore, it is my understanding that he does not answer emails inquiring as to whether this policy applies to specific commits (I am not speaking only of mails to Mr. Dawes from myself, either, but from some other contributors to XFree86 as well). Moreover, Mr. Dawes feels that it is not necessary to explicitly assert his (or the XFree86 Project, Inc.'s) copyright and license terms in modifications that are made to the XFree86 CVS repository: [In reference to the XFree86's statement on their license policy page[2], "Refer to each source file for specific licence details":] If you interpret that to apply to every revision of every file in an active CVS repository, then you are kidding yourself.[3] (Why it is challenging to add current and accurate copyright and license information to source files in XFree86 CVS is a mystery to me, particularly given past examples of precisely that[4][5].) Fortunately, some of the changes made in the XFree86 CVS repository after the relicensing on 2004-02-13[5] are trivial in nature. They are probably not copyrightable at all, and I suspect the folks at the XFree86 Project, Inc., agree -- but given the difficulty in obtaining answers to straightforward questions, and the XFree86's Project's recent fundraising efforts on their Web site, I'd hate to be mistaken and end up on the wrong side of a copyright infringement suit. (It is possible to infringe clause 3 of the XFree86 1.1 license even if there is no applicable copyright notice or license statement that makes it clear that the XFree86 1.1 actually applies to the file in question. Given that I know of Mr. Dawes's stated intentions[1], even if I don't completely comprehend them, I may be at risk for "willful" infringement under U.S. copyright law, and this is not a risk I am willing to take, nor one to which I am willing to expose my co-maintainers within Debian X Strike Force, the Debian Project in general, or its users. The good news is that it should be a piece of cake to reimplement trivial changes with a clean provenance. This would not merely be advantageous to Debian, but to anyone who wants to distribute a X Window System implementation with a more homogeneous set of copyright licenses on it (a welcome relief, I am sure, to those who have waded through the smorgasbord of licenses that apply to the various parts of the XFree86 distribution). I ask that clean-room reimplementors quote the following material when they post their changes. * I affirm that this modification is my own work. * I affirm that I have not consulted source code more recent than 2004-02-12 from an XFree86 source code release or repository in the preparation of this modification. * I refuse to assert copyright in this modification. If I am unable within a given legal jurisdiction to disclaim copyright in this modification, I hereby place it in the public domain. If I am unable within a given legal jurisdiction to place this modification in the public domain, I release this modification to the public under the following terms: Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE ABOVE LISTED COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S) BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. [The above affirmation is unfortunately complex due to differing notions worldwide about how copyright attaches, and whether it can be deliberately forfeited. The copyright license above is the MIT/X11 license originally used by the X Window System sample implementation. I did omit the final paragraph of the license, because it is not germane to copyright law and is already protected under the right of publicity[6] in the United States and elsewhere. For the sake of full disclosure, here's the paragraph in question: "Except as contained in this notice, the name(s) of the above copyright holders shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization."] So, if you submit reimplemented code, PLEASE quote the above four asterisked items, and state your assent to each one. Please trim out my lengthy bracketed asides. Please note that most trivial changes can be reimplemented by a person with only a modest exposure to Make and C in far, far less time than it took me to write this mail. Thanks for your patience. If you have any questions, please contact the Debian X Window System mailing list at <debian-x@lists.debian.org>. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/devel%40xfree86.org/msg05906.html [2] http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licenses.html [3] http://www.mail-archive.com/devel%40xfree86.org/msg05939.html [4] Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [5] Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [6] http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/publicity.html -- G. Branden Robinson | The word "power" is an obscenity in Debian GNU/Linux | a democracy. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Andy Jacobs, Jr. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
