X Strike Force XFree86 SVN commit: r2054 - in trunk/debian: . local
Author: branden
Date: 2004-12-09 12:45:17 -0500 (Thu, 09 Dec 2004)
New Revision: 2054
Modified:
trunk/debian/CHANGESETS
trunk/debian/changelog
trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml
Log:
Make factual updates, clarifications, and wording corrections to the FAQ:
+ Point out that the X.Org relicensing debacle was back in 1998, not
recent.
+ Be more clear about why OS distributors stuck with XFree86 after it was
forked, but before it was relicensed.
+ Identify which license is referred to as the "XFree86 1.1 license".
+ Clarify the origin of the contradictory statements regarding the
GPL-compatibility of XFree86.
+ Clarify the discussion of the "relicensing pilot project" that was
performed on the XFree86 "auto-config" code. The code was checked in,
*then* relicensed without other changes.
+ Point out that most distributors have settled on X.Org's X11R6.8.1 for
their X Window System implementation, at least for the time being.
+ Stress that XFree86 3.x is no longer supported.
+ Remove language that discusses future directions of XFree86 3.x support
in dexconf, since it is unlikely that that work is going to happen.
Modified: trunk/debian/CHANGESETS
===================================================================
--- trunk/debian/CHANGESETS 2004-12-09 16:13:12 UTC (rev 2053)
+++ trunk/debian/CHANGESETS 2004-12-09 17:45:17 UTC (rev 2054)
@@ -362,4 +362,24 @@
documentation of why this register poke works. (Closes: #277038)
2048
+*** THE CHANGES BELOW HAVE NOT BEEN MERGED ONTO branches/4.3.0/sid. ***
+
+Make factual updates, clarifications, and wording corrections to the FAQ:
++ Point out that the X.Org relicensing debacle was back in 1998, not
+ recent.
++ Be more clear about why OS distributors stuck with XFree86 after it was
+ forked, but before it was relicensed.
++ Identify which license is referred to as the "XFree86 1.1 license".
++ Clarify the origin of the contradictory statements regarding the
+ GPL-compatibility of XFree86.
++ Clarify the discussion of the "relicensing pilot project" that was
+ performed on the XFree86 "auto-config" code. The code was checked in,
+ *then* relicensed without other changes.
++ Point out that most distributors have settled on X.Org's X11R6.8.1 for
+ their X Window System implementation, at least for the time being.
++ Stress that XFree86 3.x is no longer supported.
++ Remove language that discusses future directions of XFree86 3.x support
+ in dexconf, since it is unlikely that that work is going to happen.
+ 2054
+
vim:set ai et sts=4 sw=4 tw=80:
Modified: trunk/debian/changelog
===================================================================
--- trunk/debian/changelog 2004-12-09 16:13:12 UTC (rev 2053)
+++ trunk/debian/changelog 2004-12-09 17:45:17 UTC (rev 2054)
@@ -228,6 +228,23 @@
Unfortunately, despite efforts to locate some, there appears to be no
documentation of why this register poke works. (Closes: #277038)
+ * Make factual updates, clarifications, and wording corrections to the FAQ:
+ + Point out that the X.Org relicensing debacle was back in 1998, not
+ recent.
+ + Be more clear about why OS distributors stuck with XFree86 after it was
+ forked, but before it was relicensed.
+ + Identify which license is referred to as the "XFree86 1.1 license".
+ + Clarify the origin of the contradictory statements regarding the
+ GPL-compatibility of XFree86.
+ + Clarify the discussion of the "relicensing pilot project" that was
+ performed on the XFree86 "auto-config" code. The code was checked in,
+ *then* relicensed without other changes.
+ + Point out that most distributors have settled on X.Org's X11R6.8.1 for
+ their X Window System implementation, at least for the time being.
+ + Stress that XFree86 3.x is no longer supported.
+ + Remove language that discusses future directions of XFree86 3.x support
+ in dexconf, since it is unlikely that that work is going to happen.
+
Changes by Denis Barbier and Fabio M. Di Nitto:
* Edit xc/programs/xkbcomp/symbols/pc/Imakefile so that the new pc/us_intl
@@ -319,7 +336,7 @@
Thomas Beige. Resolves CAN-2004-0914: memory leak, improper use of signed
integers, and overflows in the Xpm library. Resync offset in patch #200.
- -- Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> Wed, 8 Dec 2004 00:13:06 -0500
+ -- Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> Thu, 9 Dec 2004 12:37:14 -0500
xfree86 (4.3.0.dfsg.1-8) unstable; urgency=high
Modified: trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml
===================================================================
--- trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml 2004-12-09 16:13:12 UTC (rev 2053)
+++ trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml 2004-12-09 17:45:17 UTC (rev 2054)
@@ -470,9 +470,9 @@
X Consortium. In the period 1998 to 1999, X.Org established greater autonomy
for itself in part due to the unpopularity — among vendors and the
community alike — of the Open Group's decision to change the licensing of
-the X Window System SI. However, as presently constitued, and as described in
-its <a href="http://www.x.org/XOrg_By-laws.html";>by-laws</a>, X.Org continues to
-be managed at an organizational level by the Open Group.</p>
+the X Window System SI back in 1998. However, as presently constitued, and as
+described in its <a href="http://www.x.org/XOrg_By-laws.html";>by-laws</a>, X.Org
+continues to be managed at an organizational level by the Open Group.</p>
<p>In January 2004, the members of X.Org announced the formation of the X.Org
Foundation, a U.S. not-for-profit corporation and scientific charity which
@@ -530,7 +530,7 @@
href="http://www.xouvert.org";>Xouvert</a>, had also undertaken to fork the
XFree86 codebase.) While this 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.
+distributors stuck with XFree86 because it was familiar and functional.
Futhermore, the continued use of the MIT/X11 license terms ensured that
cross-pollination between the projects would work to everyone's benefit. The
redistributors, and thus most end users, were expected to continue using
@@ -547,15 +547,15 @@
and <code class="other">freedesktop.org</code> 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 "<a
+its intention to change the license on its codebase</a>. The license, called
+the "XFree86 1.1 license", combined elements of the traditional MIT/X11 license,
+the original 4-clause BSD license (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
-contrary and confusing claims.</p>
+contradictory and confusing claims.</p>
<p>Compare:</p>
@@ -570,12 +570,13 @@
<em>The XFree86 Project maintains that the 4.4.0 release of XFree86 is as GPL
compatible as any and all previous versions were.</em></a></blockquote>
-<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 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>Both of the above statements come from XFree86's website. 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 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 project,
@@ -585,26 +586,31 @@
decision by many OS vendors, including Debian, to avoid code under this
license.</p>
-<p>Debian has noted that code under a <a
+<p>On 11 December 2003 — prior to the mass-relicensing of the code in
+XFree86 CVS — 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
+identical to the new XFree86 license</a> was applied to changes which had been
+made two months earlier, on 8 October 2003, and which were 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. 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>
+co-founded by the President of The XFree86 Project, Inc. This relicensing,
+which did not accompany any changes to code, went largely unnoticed at the time,
+but that license — sometimes referred to as the "X-Oz License" —
+suffers from the same deficiencies as the new XFree86 license. Debian will not
+include code under the terms of either the X-Oz or XFree86 1.1 licenses in its
+OS (see the <a href="http://www.debian.org/social_contract";>Debian Social
+Contract</a>).</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
+some of X.Org's own ill-fated change to its SI's license terms in 1998), 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>
+the new license to the code in its CVS repository</a> on 13 Feburary 2004. Many
+OS distributors, including Debian, elected not to distribute any version of the
+XFree86 codebase using the new license. Consequently, those distributors sought
+alternatives. As of this writing (December 2004), most of the community appears
+to have settled around the <code>freedesktop.org</code>/X.Org "monolithic"
+release series, the most recent of which is <a
+href="http://www.x.org/X11R6.8.1/";>X11R6.8.1</a>.</p>
<h3><a id="debianplans">What are Debian's plans with respect to X.Org and
XFree86?</a></h3>
@@ -1175,7 +1181,8 @@
<p>You can find out which version you are using by running "X -version" (you do
not need to be root to execute this command).</p>
-<h4>For version 3.x XFree86 X servers:</h4>
+<h4>For version 3.x XFree86 X servers (which are <a href="#xfree86_3x">no longer
+supported</a>):</h4>
<p>The best way to change the default color depth of the X server is to add a
"DefaultColorDepth" line to the "Screen" section that corresponds to the X
@@ -2648,12 +2655,6 @@
because, by modifying the configuration file, the user has expressed his or
her desire to have the packaging system abandon control of the file.</p>
-<p>It is expected that the XFree86 3.x Debian packages will be updated to work as
-above but as of this writing they retain the previous behavior, which attempts
-to use debconf markers to ascertain whether the <code
-class="filespec">/etc/X11/XF86Config</code> file has been customized by the
-user.</p>
-
<p>People writing installers for the Debian OS should note that
pre-configuration of the XFree86 X server is now as simple as creating an <code
class="filespec">/etc/X11/X</code> symlink and <code
@@ -2729,14 +2730,8 @@
class="filespec">XF86Config</code> or <code class="filespec">XF86Config-4</code>
file?</a></h3>
-<p>For <code class="filespec">XF86Config</code> files used by the Debian
-packages of the XFree86 3.x servers, the <code class="command">dexconf</code>
-utility only writes to part of the X server configuration file, instead of
-claiming the entire file for itself. (<code class="command">dexconf</code> will
-change in the future to work for <code class="filespec">XF86Config</code> files
-just as it does for <code class="filespec">XF86Config-4</code> files.)</p>
-
-<p>For XFree86 3.x servers, this is mostly useful for adding <code
+<p>For XFree86 3.x servers (which are <a href="#xfree86_3x">no longer
+supported</a>), this is mostly useful for adding <code
class="other">XInput</code> and <code class="other">ServerFlags</code> sections,
and for replacing the <code class="other">Files</code> and <code
class="other">Modules</code> sections with something more to the user's
Reply to: