Re: Question on X and new license...
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 <eay@cryptsoft.com"" 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
xtifr@debian.org | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
or xtifr@speakeasy.net | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
Reply to: