Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] license of xfree86

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Ricardo Izquierdo" <odracir_redwolf AT linuxmail.org>
  • To: "SourceMage GNU/Linux Discuss" <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] license of xfree86
  • Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 09:45:38 +0800


----- Original Message -----
From: Casey Harkins <charkins AT upl.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 16:48:18 -0600 (CST)
To: Hamish Greig <hgreig AT bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] license of xfree86

>
> While I am not siding with the xfree86 team here, I think RMS's is
> incorrect. This is from the faq on xfree86.org:
>
> "What about GPL-compatibility?
>
> The 1.1 license is not GPL-compatible. To avoid new issues with
> application programs that may be licensed under the GPL, the 1.1 licence
> is not being applied to client side libraries."
>
Thank you Casey, you have made the point about why Xfree86 must be sent to the
z-rejected grimoire. Also you have to remember the first point of the SMGL
Social
Contract. So at the moment that the Xfree86 team said that its new licence
"is not GPL-compatible" the posible update of the xfree spell and the current
xfree86 spell, IMHO, had to be rescribed in the z-rejected grimoire. But also,
it seems that the Xfree86 licence is going to continue beeing free. It has to
be
checked.


> The license doesn't apply to the client libs, so any apps linking to these
> libs are safe. I'd also argue that linking against these libraries doesn't
> constitute a derivative work, and therefore isn't subject to the
> acknowledgement clause.
>
> -casey
>
>
>
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Hamish Greig wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:44, Ladislav Hagara wrote:
> > > The XFree86 Project, Inc. changed license of Xfree86 from 1.0 to 1.1
> > > http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licenses There are some problems with it.
> > > Developers of Linux distributions refuse to include new xfree86 to their
> > > distributions. For example Debian
> > > http://freedesktop.org/pipermail/x-packagers/2004-February/000003.html
> > > or
> > > RedHat
> > > http://freedesktop.org/pipermail/x-packagers/2004-February/000004.html
> > > or
> > > Mandrake http://archives.mandrakelinux.com/cooker/2004-02/msg04636.php
> > >
> > > - lace -
> >
> > I read these posts but didn't fully understand the significance, until
> > today
> > when I found a brief interview with Richard Stallman.
> >
> > http://lwn.net/Articles/72053/ and
> > http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=297
> >
> > This is a real problem. I don't think it matters if we are building from
> > source or not. It appears that because their new license conflicts with
> > the
> > GPL, then linking GPL applications to their code violates the GPL.
> > I think it means in good faith we shouldn't distribute the updated
> > version of
> > our spell. Every person that uses it will be violating the GPL .
> >
> > Hamish
> >
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss

--
______________________________________________
Check out the latest SMS services @ http://www.linuxmail.org
This allows you to send and receive SMS through your mailbox.


Powered by Outblaze




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page