XFree86 4.4 - What do we lose?

Ranthog · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 11 Jun 2003 Posts: 99

No, but the programmer within me just cringed.

That does add quite a bit over overhead into the system, though.

yodermk · Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2004 12:42 am Post subject:

Hate to say it, but this and a few other recent issues are making me start to believe that the GPL is not a good license.

Its restrictions on linking to code that is free but doesn't quite agree with it philosophically have caused plenty of unnecessary grief in the OSS/FS community.

The new XFree license is, for example, not inherently bad. They have the right to ask for acknowledgement, and it doesn't mean that X is now non-Free. But because of the "viral" nature of the GPL (and, honestly, that term is rather accurate), the whole thing explodes.

I think I'm going to endorse the LGPL as the Best Open Source License (TM). It still protects the code itself but doesn't impose ultra-anal restrictions on what it can be linked to.

IvanHoe · l33t Joined: 05 Oct 2002 Posts: 658

Alright, we need to break down the XFree86 license and examine it carefully:

skimitar · n00b Joined: 30 Dec 2003 Posts: 20

Trejkaz · Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2004 1:42 am Post subject:

[quote=skimitar]There's nothing in the GPL that prohibits acknowlegement. Hell, cover your program in copyright notices if you wish [/quote]

But there is something in the GPL which says another person can't place extra restrictions on your GPLed code. And to follow the XFree86 license would mean having to add this extra credit as a requirement for distribution, which is prohibited by the GPL.

[quote=Ranthog]That does add quite a bit over overhead into the system, though.[/quote]

Naturally. And yet we see exactly this sort of thing all the time. Hint: DCOP.

Malakai · Apprentice Joined: 24 Dec 2002 Posts: 299

IvanHoe · l33t Joined: 05 Oct 2002 Posts: 658

Trejkaz · Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2004 11:43 pm Post subject:

Maybe that's because if anyone provided this "real life" example, they would be violating the license and the FSF would have their balls. I've seen plenty of hypotheticals, but as soon as you try to prove them you violate the license yourself. ;-)

Erythro73 · Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2004 12:06 am Post subject:

Long life to BSD License!

yodermk · Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:17 am Post subject:

Ok, maybe what we need is a cross between the GPL and LGPL.

Allows linking to any code whose license falls under some generally accepted Free Software definition.

That would guarantee the Freedom of the covered code and guarantee that it is not exploited for use in proprietary software but would avoid the anality of OSS license conflicts that we have today.

What do you think?

yodermk · Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:21 am Post subject:

To add to my previous post, if the FSF released a GPL 3 with such a change, the problem would be pretty much solved, since most GPL'd programs allow distribution under the GPL 2 or, at your option, any later version!

Sivar · Apprentice Joined: 25 May 2002 Posts: 266 Location: USA

yodermk · Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2004 4:18 pm Post subject:

Thanks for the quote from the XFree FAQ. Why isn't this brought up more often? I wasn't aware of it, but I disagree with you ... I think it DOES solve the problem!

It's the same with MySQL. It has been GPL for a while, while the client libraries were LGPL. This allowed anything to link to them. Now, with the client libraries GPL, it causes a problem for commercial distributors, and is the reason why Red Hat and others can't include MySQL 4.

Trejkaz · Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 1:37 am Post subject:

Does it solve the problem? I thought part of the problem was to make a video driver (which runs on the server side), you need to interface with both XFree86 (which is GPL incompatible) and the kernel (which is GPL.)

yodermk · Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:12 am Post subject:

Ok, I was thinking more from application side.

Still, I think you'd be OK since Linux kernel modules need not be GPL. (Of course, that could potentially change in the future....)

So can we have our ebuilds now?

durden · n00b Joined: 18 Sep 2003 Posts: 2

Sorry, I feel bit dumb, but I still cant see a potential GPL-violation.

I understand that the new XFree licence is not GPL-copatible any more. But I cant see a scenario where this would lead to a GPL-violation e.g. in a existing distribution.

Some people say gnome/kde would be violating the GPL. Some say video-drivers would be violating the GPL ... I dont see the GPL-violation (I see other problems like changing documentation or the fact that not every contributor of XFree wants his code to be put under the new licence ...)

Can somebody please give a example/scenario that shows the GPL-violation that results from the XFree licence changes.

Thanks.

IWBCMAN · Guru Joined: 25 Jun 2002 Posts: 474

I am going to go ahead and take the plunge and explain what I have grokked concerning the new XFree86 licensing issue.

David Dawes is pissed. He is pissed at Keith Packard. He is is pissed at other ex-XFree86 developers. He is pissed off at Redhat and very pissed off at freedesktop.org.

Whether or not he has a right to be pissed is another question- a question which none of us can suffciently answer. But this license change is David Dawes' payback- his revenge on the renegade rebellion in the X Windows community which started almost exactly a year ago.

When Keith Packard got kicked tensions which had been around for a long time surfaced. There was a lot of talk about forking XFree86. The folks at freedesktop.org and xouvert.org totally downplayed this talk- attempting to soothe now open wounds. freedesktop.org released a) Keith Packards new Xserver and b) their very own release of xlibs. This got Dawes very, very pissed. (rhetoric) just who do these guys think they are? now they have the chutzpah to claim that they themselves are now responsible for XFree86.....

In the meantime Dawes acts as if there is nothing wrong with his new license-'if anything needs to be changed its the GPL....'. He is being so unbelievably dishonest. He knows damn well that his changes cause problems with nearly every program which is linked against the xlibs-which is almost everything you see on your X Windows display.

But Dawes failed to grasp what was really going on. He failed to understand that people were not mad at him and XFree86 about the slow pace of development-they were upset because the XFree86 core-group(which no longer exists) was engaging in heavy-handed politics(outsting outstanding contributors) and that a new wlesspring of demand for genuine community participation had arisen which confronted and challenged the old tradition which had dominated XFree86 for years- that they were alone, that no one helped them, that everyone complained but did nothing- that they had to go their own way because no one really supported them.

Now Dawes has his revenge. He simply could not see the demand for a community- the demand from those who had hitherto played only a trivial role in the development process saying that they wanted to see things happen now. Pent-up desire, demand to see changes. Dawes could have endorsed this, he chose to dis it. OF course Dawes is not alone in this-but he is the only one left after the core-group dissolved at whom one can direct their anger. Dawes used to be the more level-headed of the core-group, far mor fair than some of the other members.

Whether you can see the problems with the new license or not is not the issue. The license issue is a thing of "perception"- in more ways than one. The Linux distributors could "sense" that something wasn't right, that something was changing. Now the Linux community and Theo from OpenBSD have made it clear-"NO" to the new license. If they all position themselves saying the new license is "GPL incompatible" the new license *is* incompatible- ie. no one will use or accept the new license. The responsible persons at freedesktop.org and xouvert.org have gone out of their way to avoid a fork-yet their actions are, in the eyes of Dawes and others at XFree86, a fork in every sense of the word, except for the name.

The new realities call for new structures and new roles. XFree86 is a staunchly conservative organization-which for the most part has been a Good Thing(TM)-it has given us a reliable, stable and free X Windows implementation for many years. Change is in the air and XFree86 has found itself incapable of dealing with the new situation.

Luckily the folks at freedesktop.org are really committed to the future of X-they know that X is not simply a Linux thing, and not simply an x86 thing-they respect and endorse the standards, the protocol, and in so doing are remaining loyal to that which XFree86 has stood for. freedsktop.org has only stepped forward due to the fact that XFree86 has been unwilling to really open up it's development process. If XFree86 would have simply reliquished it's heavy-handed control of development this whole issue would have never arisen.

The license issue is only making apparent what is and has been going on behind the scenes. Re-Changing the license back to its former state, or changing the GPL will not solve these issues. If XFree86 chose to re-change(ie.revert back) to their original license it would signal a concilliatory move-it would be a gesture of good will. But wounds have already taken place. There is need for much healing. Trust has been violated.

I am not saying that Dawes is the only or main culprit here. Many ego's have been involved in this mess. Remeber it always takes two to tango- their are legitimate points of view from all sides involved. As it stands XFree86 has backed itself into a corner and is now becoming the outsider. If they continue this path they will become irrelevant.

I wish all the parties involved could just talk things out and agree to new structures and new roles. I doubt this is going to happen- the attitude now in circulation is- "fine- fuck you, if you are going to act this way -well we don't need you". This is horribly divisive-it is tearing the threads which hold *the* community together apart. Right now the main battle is about the identity of this- *the* community.
Such situations can galvanize new identities-it can also lead to splintered groups working against each other. Only time will tell how things will develop....

jtshaw · n00b Joined: 07 Aug 2003 Posts: 39 Location: Atlanta, GA

For those people that seam to be confused, I am going to try and make this clearer.

Say I make a set of libraries that need to interact with Xlib to do some graphics. In order to follow there licesnse I have to apply there restirctions to my distribution. Now, this also stops me from being able to use the GPL for my code. The reason I can't is because if somebody else were to use my code, they would also be required to abide by the extra restrictions in the XFree license. Now while some might not see a problem with this, it causes a problem for me because the GPL states you cannot apply any restrictions beyond the scope of the GPL. So all of a sudden you have a problem.

Now, I don't know as much about the BSD licesnse, but judging by some posts I have seen from BSD developers they are afraid of the same situation.

Trejkaz · Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:48 am Post subject:

Xlib is client side...

darksaidin · Apprentice Joined: 04 Oct 2003 Posts: 150

foosh · Apprentice Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 231 Location: STL

i don't know much about software licensing, but the feeling i got from reading the announcement on xfree's website was just that they wanted people to do anything with the code except claim that they wrote it.

i need to read up some more tho..
_________________
http://wustlog.blogspot.com

bigsmoke · Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2004 5:45 pm Post subject: Hopefully ...

Hopefully they will turn around this licence change so that we don't have to live without X improvements untill FreeDesktop.Org's X server is stable

_________________
Gentoo's kind community
has build up an immunity
for the kind of rash
that makes others bash(1)
the newer GNU/Linux user,
a man(1) that is inapt
to flawlessly adapt,
and therefore called a luser.

sgtrock · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 21 Feb 2003 Posts: 87

Just saw this at LinuxFund.org:

dberkholz · Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 8:46 am Post subject:

mglauche · Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 10:38 am Post subject: