[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Question on X and new license...

On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:57:44AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> 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:
> > > * 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.

The difference is that the old XFree86 license was GPL-compatible, and
the new one is not.  It is still true that XFree86 will not accept code
licensed only under the GPL into their source distribution.  (They
already permit code that is multi-licensed in part under the GPL into
their distribution; see parts of Thomas Winischhofer's SiS driver.)

There may not be very many people who want to use the new XFree86
license, just to get along with the XFree86 Project leadership, and who
also want to retain GPL-compatibility, but it's not an unreasonable
position, and dual-licensing would be an easy way to achieve it.

G. Branden Robinson                |        Fair use is irrelevant and
Debian GNU/Linux                   |        improper.
branden@debian.org                 |        -- Asst. U.S. Attorney Scott
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |        Frewing, explaining the DMCA

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: