[devel] [dawes@XFree86.Org: Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3]

[devel] [dawes@XFree86.Org: Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3]

[Anton Farygin]

Вот еще разъяснения David'а на тему лицензий XFree.

Rgds,
Rider

----- Forwarded message from David Dawes <dawes@XFree86.Org> -----

Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 03:57:27 -0500
From: David Dawes <dawes@XFree86.Org>
To: devel@XFree86.Org
Subject: Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3
X-Original-To: rider@altlinux.com
Delivered-To: rider@localhost.altlinux.ru
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402180225030.4435@zod.capslock.lan>; from mharris@www.linux.org.uk on Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 02:39:01AM -0500
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on public.xfree86.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=6.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63
X-Spam-Level: 
Reply-To: devel@xfree86.org

On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 02:39:01AM -0500, Mike A. Harris wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, David Dawes wrote:
>
>>Also check the LICENSE document
>><http://www.xfree86.org/~dawes/pre-4.4/LICENSE.html>.  There is a lot
>>of FUD being circulated about the licensing, so check here for the facts.
>>Also check out the FSF's Free Software definition and their list of
>>licenses, as well as the OSI's Open Source Definition.  There are links
>>to these sites from our LICENSE document.  In particular, follow up with
>>the BSD licences (original and revised), the FreeType License (FTL),
>>the SGI Free Software License (which applies to GLX and CID), and the
>>Apache 1.1 licence.
>>
>>Don't rely on the FUD being circulated by people who can barely hide
>>their prejudice.  Go straight to the definitive sources on licensing
>>issues, namely the FSF and the OSI, and come to your own conclusions.
>
>So I must totally agree with you David.  People should indeed 
>go to the definitive sources on open source licensing issues, the 
>FSF and the OSI.
>
>Interestingly enough, neither the XFree86 license version 1.0, 
>nor the new 1.1 license are listed as OSI approved open source 
>licenses:
>
>	http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php
>
>Going to the Free Software Foundations site to see their list of 
>approved free software licenses, the XFree86 license version 1.0 
>and 1.1 are also noteably missing:
>
>	http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html
>
>The FSF does have the following:
>
>"The X11 license.
>This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, 
>compatible with the GNU GPL. XFree86 uses the same license. This 
>is sometimes called the "MIT" license, but that term is 
>misleading since MIT has used many licenses for software."
>
>However that statement is inaccurate, as the parts of the 
>XFree86 source code which are copyright by XFree86.org, are 
>under either the XFree86 license version 1.0, or XFree86 license 
>version 1.1.
>
>The simple conclusion, is that XFree86 is not free software, as
>defined by the Free Software Foundation nor open source software
>as defined by the Open Source Initiative, however there are a few 
>inaccuracies present on both of these websites which need to be 
>fixed, in order to not mislead people into beleiving XFree86 is 
>MIT/X11 licensed.

Well, you came to the right conclusion, even if for the wrong
reasons.  But I figured you'd get to where I wanted you to go, one
way or the other.  It isn't non-free because of the XFree86 licences,
but because of other licences.  If you look at XFree86 as a whole,
you'll find that it hasn't qualified as FSF-free for years -- for
at least as long as the SGI GLX code has been included.  It was
not, as a whole, FSF-free before the change, let alone GPL-compatible.
Same after the change.  But then XFree86 has never factored in
those two licensing criteria.  If you or other distros have policies
against shipping software that isn't FSF-free, you shouldn't have
been shipping XFree86 since at least 4.0.  It isn't the modified
XFree86 licence (compare with the original BSD licence and especially
the Apache 1.1 licence, which are both FSF-free and OSI-open) that
suddenly makes XFree86 as a whole not FSF-free.  It simply hasn't
been in at least 4-5 years, if not longer.

The big deal you are all making about the GPL-incompatibility of
the modified XFree86 licence is really quite minor in comparison.
Lets face it:  Your real objection is to giving credit to XFree86
and its contributors.  GPL-incompatibility and FUD about FSF-freeness(*)
of the modified licence is just a poor excuse.

Anyway, keep researching the various licences and definitions, but
look at the content, and don't be misled by the labels or lack
thereof.  Maybe you'll make it to the next step too...

Enjoy your day.

(*) http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-February/004007.html

David
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@XFree86.Org
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

----- End forwarded message -----