X Strike Force XFree86 SVN commit: r1564 - in trunk/debian: . local
Author: branden
Date: 2004-06-23 17:28:15 -0500 (Wed, 23 Jun 2004)
New Revision: 1564
Modified:
trunk/debian/CHANGESETS
trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml
Log:
Tidy up wording, tone down some "non-NPOV" language, add more links, and
make clarifications. Thanks to Steinar H. Gunderson for the feedback!
Modified: trunk/debian/CHANGESETS
===================================================================
--- trunk/debian/CHANGESETS 2004-06-23 21:36:06 UTC (rev 1563)
+++ trunk/debian/CHANGESETS 2004-06-23 22:28:15 UTC (rev 1564)
@@ -53,6 +53,6 @@
Add FAQ entries:
+ What is the story with XFree86 being forked?
+ What is the story with XFree86's license?
- 1562, 1563
+ 1562, 1563, 1564
vim:set ai et sts=4 sw=4 tw=80:
Modified: trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml
===================================================================
--- trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml 2004-06-23 21:36:06 UTC (rev 1563)
+++ trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml 2004-06-23 22:28:15 UTC (rev 1564)
@@ -398,27 +398,33 @@
<h3><a id="xfree86fork">What is the story with XFree86 being forked?</a></h3>
-<p>Recent events have challenged XFree86's pre-eminence. Seldom, if ever, have
-there been more than a dozen people with commit access to XFree86's source code
-repository at any one time, and in general, XFree86's development has been
-dominated by one to four individuals. As XFree86's userbase increased
-dramatically over the years, some people became interested in taking the X
-Window System in directions that the XFree86 project leadership was not
-interested in going. Furthermore, some felt that the XFree86 project's
-infrastructure was not scaling to the needs of its users; for example, XFree86
-did not have a bug tracking system until March 2003, and the mailing lists were
-periodically reorganized such that end users had difficulty figuring out which
-forum to use for their questions. On top of all that, the relatively slow
-release cycle of the XFree86 codebase led redistributors to extensively patch
-their shipping versions of the software, which complicated user support issues
-tremendously. Moreover, the patch submission and review process left many
-contributors — including redistributors — frustrated.</p>
+<p>After XFree86 rose to prominence, X.Org began to incorporate parts of its
+codebase into its own SI; however, this process tended to lag XFree86's own
+releases, and until 2004 X.Org's SI did not offer features compelling enough to
+motivate a switch, at least within the Free / Libre / Open Source community.</p>
+<p>Recent events have challenged XFree86's pre-eminence, but they have their
+roots in long-standing trends and practices. Seldom, if ever, have there been
+more than a dozen people with commit access to XFree86's source code repository
+at any one time, and in general, XFree86's development has been dominated by one
+to four individuals. As XFree86's userbase increased dramatically over the
+years, some people became interested in taking the X Window System in directions
+that the XFree86 project leadership was not interested in going. Furthermore,
+some felt that the XFree86 project's infrastructure was not scaling to the needs
+of its users; for example, XFree86 did not have a bug tracking system until
+March 2003, and the mailing lists were periodically reorganized such that end
+users had difficulty figuring out which forum to use for their questions. On
+top of all that, the relatively slow release cycle of the XFree86 codebase led
+redistributors to extensively patch their shipping versions of the software,
+which complicated user support issues tremendously. Moreover, the patch
+submission and review process left many contributors — including
+redistributors — frustrated.</p>
+
<p>The presence of these stressors gave rise to (or exacerbated) personality
conflicts, and in 2003 a group of developers resolved to set up a separate
development project, which was eventually christened <a
href="http://www.freedesktop.org";>FreeDesktop.Org</a>. (Another group, <a
-href="http://www.xouvert.org";>Xouvert</a> had also undertaken to fork the
+href="http://www.xouvert.org";>Xouvert</a>, had also undertaken to fork the
XFree86 codebase.) While this was development was lauded by many redistributors
and feature-hungry end users, its short-term practical impact was fairly small.
OS distributors stuck with XFree86 because it was "ready" and it worked.
@@ -434,13 +440,14 @@
<h3><a id="xfree86license">What is the story with XFree86's license?</a></h3>
-<p>The calculus described above changed in January 2004, when the XFree86
-project <a
+<p>The "wait-and-see" approach adopted by most vendors in the wake of Xouvert
+and FreeDesktop.Org forks changed in January 2004, when the XFree86 project <a
href="http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-January/001892.html";>announced
its intention to change the license on its codebase</a>. The license combined
elements of the traditional MIT/X11 license, the original 4-clause BSD license
-(containing the infamous "advertising clause"), and the Apache Software License
-in a novel way. The new license was <a
+(containing the infamous "<a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html";>advertising clause</a>"), and the
+Apache Software License in a novel way. The new license was <a
href="http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-February/003974.html";>found to
be GPL-incompatible by Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation</a> and
most OS distributors, including Debian, whereas the XFree86 project makes
@@ -458,29 +465,38 @@
<p>While the former is an unequivocal "yes" to the question of whether the
software under the new XFree86 license is GPL-compatibile, the latter is, of
course, neither a "yes" nor a "no". Moreover, it is the copyright holders in
-GPL-licensed works whose opinions matter, because it their license terms, not
+GPL-licensed works whose opinions matter, because it is their license terms, not
XFree86's, which would be violated by intermixing code (in source or binary
form) under the GNU GPL with code under the new XFree86 license.</p>
<p>On top of this, when OS distributors have requested clarification as to the
precise and practical meaning of XFree86's new license from the XFree86, they
-have been rebuffed or ignored. A license that is not understood is not safe
-enough for most organizations to deal with (for fear of civil or criminal claims
-of copyright infringement), hence the decision by many OS vendors, including
-Debian, to avoid code under this license.</p>
+have often found the replies insufficiently elucidating. A license that is not
+understood is not safe enough for most organizations to deal with — for
+fear of civil or criminal claims of copyright infringement — hence the
+decision by many OS vendors, including Debian, to avoid code under this
+license.</p>
-<p>Despite the outcry, the XFree86 Project went ahead with its relicensing
-decision and applied it to their CVS repository on 13 Feburary 2004. Those
-concerned about the new XFree86 license should note that code under a <a
+<p>Debian has noted that code under a <a
href="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00229.html";>license nearly
identical to the new XFree86 license</a> was applied to changes made in an
XFree86 CVS commit on 8 October 2003, credited to <a
href="http://www.x-oz.com/";>X-Oz Technologies, Inc.</a>, a consulting company
-co-founded by the President of The XFree86 Project, Inc.</p>
+co-founded by the President of The XFree86 Project, Inc. It went unnoticed at
+the time, but that license suffers from the same deficiencies as the new XFree86
+license. Debian cannot include code under the terms of either license in its
+OS.</p>
-<p>Many OS distributors, including Debian, have resolved to not distribute any
-version of the XFree86 codebase using the new license. Consequently, these
-vendors are seeking alternatives.</p>
+<p>Despite the outcry regarding the XFree86 project's decision (which reminded
+some of X.Org's own ill-fated change to its SI's license terms), it
+went ahead and <a
+href="http://www.mail-archive.com/cvs-commit@xfree86.org/msg03271.html";>applied
+it to its CVS repository</a> on 13 Feburary 2004. Many OS distributors,
+including Debian, have resolved to not distribute any version of the XFree86
+codebase using the new license. Consequently, as of this writing (June 2004),
+these vendors are seeking alternatives. It remains to be seen whether the
+community will coalesce around a single X Window System SI as it did around
+XFree86, or whether the environment will be competitive.</p>
<h3><a id="defxservclient">What are X servers and X clients?</a></h3>
Reply to: