Re: X statement
shaleh@livenet.net (Shaleh) wrote on 02.04.98 in <[🔎] 35241753.E3B41F26@livenet.net>:
[qpmpriv.xps]
> This was posted to another mailing list I am on.
>
> See http://www.camb.opengroup.org/tech/desktop/onlineorder/xdownload.htm
> for The Open Group's *free* download page and the license. It is no
> more onerous, IMO, than Netscape's or Qt's licenses for source code.
Well, Netscape's source is free software, even according to rms - just
like Linux or Emacs, or X11R6.3.
Qt and X11R6.4 aren't, just like Windows.
It's a completely different ball game.
Read the Debian Free Software Guidelines if you don't understand why.
> The cash haemorrhage is made worse by the non-fee paying XFree86.
Of course, all the XFree86 members have been *working* for free.
> Although it may be able to claim several million users, the net
> contribution to the development of the X Window System, as embodied by
> specs, protocols or cash is a flat zero. No contributed specs, no
> contributed standards and no cash...
... but lots of contributed server code, which, IMO, is far more
important, and is work that was previously only done inside commercial
companies and NOT CONTRIBUTED BACK.
> but a lot of individuals and
> companies undoubtedly benefit.
And if they aren't stupid, the system vendors profit as well from the
XFree86 work. Their market includes the same hardware XFree86 is writing
servers for.
> The reason for the system vendors to
> fund X was so that each of them increased their own chances of being
> involved in a networked graphical environment, and the source code was
> made freely available as a way to foster the interoperability and
> because the project came from an academic background, which requires the
> free flow of information. However, the model breaks down if one member
> has a lot of customers and makes no contribution. At that point, the
> other members are funding the freeloader.
Of course, in this case, XFree86 *has* made large contributions - and in
an area where all the others haven't done any contributions.
IMO, it's the others who are the freeloaders.
> Research use (non-commercial use) of X11R6.4 is also free. The folk
> affected are us, MetroLink, RedHat, Caldera, SlackWare, Walnut Creek
> CD-ROM, Delix, SuSE, and so on. XFree86 should remain unaffected.
> Enlightenment will be unaffected. KDE will be unaffected. GNOME will
> be unaffected.
>
> Under the terms of the license, nothing prevents XFree86 from continuing
> to port X11R6.4 and to add Servers. Fee-based distributions will need
> to license X11R6.4 or buy already licensed binaries. Pretty simple.
> Should be non-threatening. Those who paid for their Linux before, will
> now include a proportion for the X fees. Those who didn't, probably
> won't have to pay anything now, either.
I'm no license expert, but from what I've heard so far, their license has
some fairly ugly provisions that, for example, threaten _any_ X source
CDs.
> BUT... There is a large and vocal fraction of the Linux community who
> equate open access to source and zero cost pricing. Had their been a
That, however, is not the problem with the new X license. It's just a
straw man.
> significant contribution to X Window System technologies, I'd have more
> sympathy with this view.
I'd say that's a pretty clueless sentence.
> The measurable, practical effect of XFree86 on
> X is zero... I'm not referring to the *uses* of X, but to the technology
> basis.
That's wrong, of course. Hardware support is part of the technology basis,
and from what I can see, XFree86 contributions in that area are far larger
than those of everybody else taken together.
> Given the comprehensive failure of XFree86 to do anything at all (in
> developing new technology, not in implementing Servers and some trivial
> support programs using the technology) in the last seven years, I'm not
Come back when you understand what you are writing about. You clearly
don't.
MfG Kai
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: