Slashdot Log In
Mandrake Blocked By XFree86 4.4 License
Posted by
simoniker
on Mon Feb 16, 2004 03:51 PM
from the dueling-legalese dept.
from the dueling-legalese dept.
Linzer writes "A mailing-list message posted by Mandrake Linux's main developer on the Cooker mailing-list states that the development version of the distro is about to revert from XFree86 4.4 to the 4.3 version because of XFree86's recent license change. Mandrake contributors have started asking for justifications from MdkSoft. Many point out features of XF86 4.4 [an 'an open source X11-based desktop infrastructure'] they can't live without, including support for some not so uncommon hardware.
A later Cooker mailing-list post extends a bit on the reasons."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Interesting)
But your point is well taken.
Parent
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Funny)
Girl from Gamma Pi Lambda: "That boy is a 'B' 'S' 'D' 'PIG'!"
Desko: "Try to see if you can get what I am now...
(spits mountain of code onto everyone's hair and clothing.)
I'm a patch-cluster! Get it?"
Engineering Student: "LICENSE FIGGHHTT!!!!
(All chaos ensues...)
Parent
Enter the GNU (Score:5, Insightful)
Note: I don't actually speak for RMS, but I am reminded of his doctrine every time someone says "I need this non-free software". ;^)
Re:Enter the GNU (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Enter the GNU (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Enter the GNU (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to point out, the new XFree86 licence is not "non-free". The issue is that in the eyes of many (including, almost certainly, the FSF) it is not compatible with the GPL.
Parent
The X Windows Trap (Score:5, Interesting)
I think Stallman would remind he foresaw this situation many years ago:
The X Windows Trap [fsf.org]
If people like you weren't so busy misrepresenting his views you'd see that.
Parent
Why does Mandrake have a problem with this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why does Mandrake have a problem with this? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Also... (Score:5, Informative)
If you notice the defensive post by Alan Cox that he's asking them not to
change the license on his contributions, there's something wrong with it in
the sense that it doesn't appear as "free" software anymore (free as in
libre). (Not that they could, since Alan owns what he wrote of course)
This kind of action only adds to the licensing mess xfree86 currently is. Working with the xfree86 devlopment team is becoming harder and harder.
I can see why some mandrake users are pissed about this, but in the end it'll be better for everyone.
Parent
Re:Why does Mandrake have a problem with this? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Why does Mandrake have a problem with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get that out of the license at all. What I read is that you can't use the name "The XFree86 Project, Inc." in any advertising -- why is that a big deal?
I also don't see the problems with the rest of the license points highlighted in the mailing list exchange. Looks like if you put their copyright notice in
Now the generation of yet another licensing scheme for open source software does confuse things unnecessarily, but I don't see any concrete problems with the license....
Parent
And what would be the Problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
It appears to my uneducated eye that this is a very slight modification which shouldn't make any difference to mandrake beyond the typical publication of copyright notices.
If Mandrake takes it seriously enough to revert to 4.3 I must be wrong? Anyone have an explanation?
Re:And what would be the Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
You could conceivably argue that a program was derivative if it required a feature present in XFree and only in XFree, but (certainly OTOH) I can't think of any such programs.
Parent
Time to find an alternative. (Score:5, Informative)
This implementation is the one we've been using for Linux Ages. But since recently, they have failed to deliver a greater-than-the-previous product: no extraordinary boosts, no rewrite of the starting system, etc... It's beginning to grow too old - we can see that by the starting greed of the project over its programmers.
What we need is a new subsystem, like Xouvert or freedesktop.org's X Server implementation.
GPL compatibility (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to spell doom... (Score:5, Insightful)
alternatives are more mature, XFree86 will feel the heat.
And as for the Free in XFree86... Hmm..
Wither X? (Score:5, Insightful)
But in the last several years it really just hasn't moved.
18 years ago the Mac // came out. We stole a vid card from one and put it in another. 4 seconds later, we had 2 screens showing one continuous desktop. Windows and X Windows finally now can do that if you kill a chicken at the full moon.
The X Consortium kept X down for critical years - backing off from coming close to dictating look at feel. As a result, doing things like Exiting an App was a Tower of Babel proposition (frame != lotus != xv != wordperfect != anything else).
Gnome and KDE was developed by folks used to Windows and Mac as kids who demanded a style guide. Too late?
X11R6/Broadway was released and, as far as I can discern, mostly development has stopped. Sure we have drivers to take advantage of cards and 3D engines and such, but it's pretty well unchanged from 1994.
Where is my easy Log Back in and have it give me my desktop I left back (start up the apps I had with cursors in the places I had them)?
Where is my ability to snapshot and env, give up the machine, move to another and restart it?
What's moved FORWARD except drivers in the last couple years?
Why do we care about .. releases.
License?
I have faith that it will be worked out with everyone happy. This reminds me too much of the IPF flameup over a license in a beta of darren's code. It caused PF to be written, but that was mostly schoolyard maturity at work on that one.
Re:Wither X? (Score:5, Informative)
X *does* have the ability to support multiple servers, and each server can support multiple screens. Pretty much has *always* had this ability.
The ability to "snapshot" has very little to do with X. The server could certainly snapshot and forward. In fact, it is remarkably EASY to do with X. Except -- (and there seems to always be an "EXCEPT") when your alternate server is running a different pixel depth... Like, you launch your application on a true-colour display, and then bring it back on a monochrome (1-bit) display.
Even that has a solution. Anyway -- the other "common" display systems (MAC and Windows) don't have a solution (unless going through something like VNC).
Development hasn't stopped -- but the "main-line" of the X server *is* frozen. Development occurs on the fringes (new extensions), and with new drivers.
Ratboy
Parent
Re:Wither X? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Wither X? (Score:5, Informative)
Your core confusion comes from confusing what X Windows is, possibly as a result of using Microsoft Windows. Windows does a great deal to blur the lines between the graphics display layer and the widgets on top.
X Windows is (to simplify a bit) just a way to display bits on screen. Exactly what you display is left as a problem for the next layer up. This might seem odd, but it has great benefits. This means that the user interface layer (often Gnome or KDE these days) can engage in rapid change and development while the base layer (X) can sit nice and stable. Conversely, because particular widget sets and other user interface details aren't embedded into the graphics system I can pick from competing [xig.com] offerings [xfree86.org].
XFree86 is mostly stable because it works fine. There have been some important developments recently (XRender, XRandR, XVideo), but on the whole we've got what we need. The user visible improvements should take place on a higher level (Gnome, KDE, etc). Those higher levels can take advantage of the stable base X provides. All that's needed are regular driver updates for new hardware as it comes out (and bug fixes as bugs become known). The X Windows standard itself is gloriously stable. It works fine, additional functionality can be (and is) provided through extensions. That stability is key to allowing higher levels in the system to experiment.
The features you want sound like great ideas (although I notice that Microsoft Windows and MacOS doesn't support the snapshot and migration functionality you want either). But they're ideas for different layers. Complaining that X should provide them is like complaining that your dashboard should provide better traction.
Parent
XFree86 is a licensing mess. (Score:5, Informative)
You can read his analysis on a thread on debian-legal [debian.org].
There's also been extensive discussion [debian.org] of the new license on debian-legal. The discussion carries over from Jan into February too. [debian.org]
Perhaps I'm Missing Something... (Score:5, Interesting)
#Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer.
# Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution, and in the same place and form as other copyright, license and disclaimer information.
# The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", in the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments.
From the looks of the problematic clauses, it seems that all that needs to be changed is some documentation.
Re:Perhaps I'm Missing Something... (Score:5, Informative)
Not quite, but it has similar problems.
It conflicts with the GPL and thus, people wanting to put GPL software in XFree86 wont be able to.
Or, more to the point, people wanting to use XFree86 libraries in GPL software. That is a problem.
Parent
meanwhile (Score:5, Funny)
Mandrake isn't the only one (Score:5, Interesting)
This might be the sort of thing the freedesktop.org people are talking about when they say XFree86 (the project) doesn't have any accountability to the community. They seem to have a problem working cooperatively with others.
Freedesktop.org not only has a couple of big-name figures from the glory days of X involved (Jim Gettys and Keith Packard), but they also have actively involved various third parties and stakeholders in the X Window System technology -- not just the Linux distributions, but leading developers in GNOME, KDE, and Mozilla to name just a few, and some other people who were kicked out of the XFree86 project.
XFree86 does not seem to have been able to make the transition from the small hobbyist audience that it served in 1993. Maybe David Dawes and the few remaining participants in XFree86 will be happier producing a custom version of the X Window System for themselves and a tiny minority of others. Maybe they didn't lack the skills to be a large community project: just the motivation.
The Glory Days of X (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Those features I can't live without (Score:5, Insightful)
Removing Japanese fonts as well? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Removing Japanese fonts as well? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
freedesktop.org xlibs, xserver (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.freedesktop.org/Software/xserver
Incompatibility. (Score:5, Insightful)
People are saying this license change is "incompatible" with the GPL... however under the wording of the change it is still acceptable for individual files to be copyrighted, and included in the XFree86 base as licensed under the GPL. You're really RMSing if you are going to noodle about having to include an extra copyright notice in your documentation.
This has little to do with anything other than the fact that Mandrake team realizes it's not a valuble use of their time to go through adding all these new copyright notices when you're in RC1 state. Not sure how it compares with rolling back to 4.3 in terms of actual labor, but obviously the CBA came out on the side of rollback.
The biggest joke here is that people are crying about losing the features of 4.4, in a distribution that doesn't do anything to stop you from DOWNLOADING AND INSTALLING THE BLEEDING EDGE FROM SOURCE whenever you feel like it. for crying out loud, people. DIY!
xfree86 digging its grave (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a bit early to draw conclusions but if all the distros will drop it one by one, it's just what will happen. I'll theink we'll be better off with the alternatives (Xouvert & the X server at freedesktop.org) anyway.
You have to Wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not going to run it. Everyone who writes software has a right to decide on their own licence, but everyone also has a right to choose not to use it.
OpenBSD not accepting License change either (Score:5, Informative)
Like other projects, we will not be incorporating new code from David
Dawes into the XFree86 codebase used in OpenBSD. All such changes
have to be skipped, rewritten, or you can contact the XFree86 group
and place your own efforts to repair this damage.
the message continues.. but I think you get the point. Check the mailing list archives for the entire message
Re:I don't understand (Score:5, Informative)
They have an incredible mishmash of licenses between each source file, as each file can contain a message stating what license it is released under.
Theyve just created another which encompasses the binary distribution.
The whole binary distribution.
Except the portions which had seperate licenses as specified by the source code.
But to check which those bits are, you would have to check each source file, and know what it does.
So I guess Mandrake have decided, probably in these exact words "F*CK THAT!"
Parent
Re:Please explain (Score:5, Informative)
The short version: the GPL is "incompatible" with licenses that require you to include extra text and restrict all other advertising. Thus, you cannot legally include both GPL'ed code and New XFree86 licensed code in the same program.
Parent
Re:Please explain (Score:5, Informative)
(IANAL or a licencing expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong.) I believe the problem is that this is a restriction being placed on the code, and the GPL doesn't allow any additional restrictions (however harmless they may seem) to be added. Hence, an incompatibility between that licence and the GPL.
Parent
Re:Other peoples' code, other peoples' license! (Score:5, Interesting)
First, XFree is an open source, community driven project. Hence, in many distributors eyes is wasn't merely "someone else's graphic system". The real problem was that all of these distributors assumed that XFree would remain GPL-compatible forever. In fact, many of the distributors contributed to the XFree project (see above). Beyond that, XFree was and is the standard, so it was only natural to use it.
XFree's sudden change to their license was a suprise that many people never saw coming.
Parent
Re:Other peoples' code, other peoples' license! (Score:5, Interesting)
"Find one who'se license is compatible with your own" is far more efficient.
If you have a BSD-licensed product, you shouldn't feel a need to build your own if you find appropriate BSD-licensed components.
If you have a GPL-licensed product, you shouldn't feel a need to build your own if you find appropriate GPL-licensed components.
If you're making something proprietary, well, I guess yeah, build your own.
Parent
Re:Other peoples' code, other peoples' license! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:License change is perfectly reasonable (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:License change is perfectly reasonable (Score:5, Informative)
What's wrong with that? You are still allowed to modify and redistribute the code to your heart's content, as long as you acknowledge the original authors. Wouldn't you want your work acknowledged?
The problem is not that those terms are onerous in and of themselves. The problem is that those terms are seemingly incompatible with the GPL, in particular the GPL's requirements that a redistributor of GPL'ed material is not allowed to place additional restrictions on redistribution.
Given that there is a vast amount of GPL'ed software that is linked against X libraries, this would, on the face of it, make it impossible to distribute that GPL'ed software in compliance with both the new XFree86 and GPL licenses. At least, if the GPL'ed software was considered in some way derivative of the XFree86 licensed software.
I'm sure all of this will get sorted out, but people are right to be raising the question right now.
Parent
Re:Quibble's and bits... (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO it's the BSDish license that will eventually lead to such a bizzare tangle of required credits, attributions, acknowledgements, etc that it'll be very hard to keep track of them all.
I'm glad I use the *GPL's. Pretty much avoid mess's like this altogether too.
Parent
Re:Quibble's and bits... (Score:5, Informative)
Can someone give me a rational explanation as to why the GPL is so problematic in this area?
Sure. Because by requiring your program to list contributors, you're limiting the ability to use or modify the program as you see fit.
Imagine I had an OS program that required you to list 1,000 contributors each time it was run, divided by group, sorted alphabetically, blah blah blah. Now you're required to fill a user's screen with 1,000 names they'll never read, and you are unable to get around this requirement, short of writing your own program from scratch. What a waste of previously good OS code.
Parent
Re:Quibble's and bits... (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine that you had actually taken the time to read the revised license for yourself rather than rely on others. Here then for the incredibly lazy are points 2 and 3 of the revised license:
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution, and in the same place and form as other copyright, license and disclaimer information.
3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", in the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments.
Nowhere in those statements are you required to post a damn thing on the screen as part of the binary. Note the repeated use of the words "documentation" as the basis for satisfying the conditions of the license. Give credit for using their code or don't use (steal?) their source to make your own app. These are the conditions for use. Disagree, fine. But don't distort the truth to make your argument sound better.
I'm still waiting for someone to provide a reasoned explanation for all this chest beating and general blather. As per usual, there's far to many instances of I-can't-be-bothered-to-RTFM and "the sky is falling".
Parent
Re:Quibble's and bits... (Score:5, Insightful)
Except the new X licensed would seem to me to make linking X librarys into GPL'd code a violation of the GPL, as well as adding the onus of the advertising clause to EVERY SINGLE PROGRAM that uses the X libraries.
If you're fine with loosing all of the GPL'd apps that you run on your *BSD box, then enjoy your Xwindows with no modern window manager, no GNOME or KDE, no QT or GTK apps, etc
Parent
Re:I'm Crying (Score:5, Insightful)
Why can't they just post a link to the XFree86 website? the people who care will go there, those that don't care won't have to wade through a bunch of names they don't care about.
Parent
Re:Only mandrake? (Score:5, Informative)
In my opinion this is a bigger problem for xfree86 than it is for debian. The reason being quite simple. By the time debian is ready for a new version of X11 the fdo xserver will be ready.
Where xfree86 is losing big is that debian is the one that does all the porting to non-i386 and to a degree non-ppc archs. Xfree86 is losing this service because debian will most likely not be packaging version 4.4 and that will result in xfree86 going down hill because debian along with many other developers that are outside xfree86 proper do a lot for xfree86.
Basically what Im saying is that the fdo xserver just got a huge boost in that there will be a lot of former xfree86 developers looking for a new project and as someone who activly uses the fdo xserver, it seems to be the best.
Parent