On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 12:59:19PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 11:43:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > * David Dawes, President of The XFree86 Project, Inc., claims that a > > a decision to apply the X-Oz license to any "client side library" code > > shipped by that organization has been "deferred".[1] This statement > > is a lot weaker than a guarantee that it never will happen.
Changing the license on the server at this late date has its own (albeit much smaller) problems. It's going to blind-side a lot of people who don't follow the gossip channels and could well lead to a lot of inadvertent license violating by people who were previously in full compliance with all the license requirements. This, I think, is the essence of the BSD-folks' objections to the new license. (Speaking of inadvertent license violating, does anyone even know the complete list of people that must be credited in advertisements of Debian-based systems due to 4-clause BSD licenses? "The OpenSSL project, Eric Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]"" and...? Do we still need to credit the UC Regents?) > > * Code that forms part of the XFree86 SDK, a driver development kit > > (which there has been some work to package for Debian) *is* under the > > X-Oz license, and would prohibit the development of GPL-licensed > > drivers for the XFree86 X server. > Mmm, i would like to look into this, and see if i can manage to get > those files changed if needed. Also, you only would need to dual-licence > those drivers under the GPL and the X-Oz licence, which would not be an > all that bad thing politically. Dual-licensing would defeat the purpose of GPLing the drivers, i.e. it would open them up to proprietary exploitation by others. -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
