Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
X GUI GNU is Not Unix

XFree86 4.4 Released 531

Posted by michael from the license-problems-unnecessarily-hard dept.
puriots0 writes "XFree86 version 4.4 is finally out! Grab it while it's still hot, if you don't mind the recent licensing changes... And if you don't care about the license, but the maintainers of your distribution do, this might be the only way to get it for the moment." The XFree86 people seem very eager to claim that the new license is nothing bad; see their FAQ. However, people who have reviewed it, such as RMS and Branden Robinson, think differently. It looks as if the XFree86 people have a short timespan to either rethink their license changes or be dropped from every/almost every Linux distribution in favor of a forked codebase.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

XFree86 4.4 Released More

XFree86 4.4 Released

Comments Filter:

  • From the FAQ (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @02:49PM (#8423911) Journal

    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.


    So, it seems that the main reason for a fork is no longer an issue ? No-one is going to be writing a new X-Server (well, I guess some of the embedded folks might, but that's about all I can think of), and they state that there's no issues with any client programs that you link with ... No problem for most of us then, unless it's for political reasons.

    My position is that if you write/own the code you get to say how it's used. I don't think there's *any* argument against that, and I can see why they want to promote themselves in this world where perception is all. The issue is that all decisions have consequences - which may be why client-programs are not part of the deal :-) I seriously doubt that XFree86 *want* a code fork, and I think that freedesktop.org will give them a serious run for their money if the fork goes ahead.

    I wonder if the forking argument itself (please say that correctly :-) has gathered sufficient momentum to cause the predicted split though - that would be a pity if so. For all that KDE and Gnome are competing desktops, and they have both co-evolved to their benefit over time, I think two competing windowing-system standards might have a harder time co-evolving... If they didn't, you'd have to wonder why there were 2 in the first place!

    Simon.

    • Re:From the FAQ (Score:5, Informative)

      by Ed Avis ( 5917 ) <ed@membled.com> on Sunday February 29, 2004 @02:53PM (#8423940) Homepage
      It prevents you including GPL-licensed code in an X server derived from XFree86; that is enough reason for Debian to avoid the new release, it seems.

      Interesting that the FAQ now acknowledges that the 1.1 licence does not permit redistribution under the GPL; before, the XFree86 people were insisting that in their opinion it was allowed. Unless I'm confusing two different licences here.

      • Re:From the FAQ (Score:5, Informative)

        by platipusrc ( 595850 ) <erchambers@gmail.com> on Sunday February 29, 2004 @03:06PM (#8424026) Homepage
        I think that what you're referring to is the Apache 2.0 license that had a clause about patents that some said conflicted with the GNU GPL but that the Apache Group said did not. I'm not sure, but I think the Apache 2.0 license has been revised further to make it more clear that it is GNU GPL compatible.

        • Re:From the FAQ (re GPL + APL-2.0) (Score:5, Interesting)

          by H4x0r Jim Duggan ( 757476 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @04:43PM (#8424553) Homepage Journal
          I'm not sure, but I think the Apache 2.0 license has been revised further to make it more clear that it is GNU GPL compatible

          Unfortunately not. Instead of fixing the problem, the Apache group made a public statement to say that the incompatibility doesn't exist. - The problem arose from the press release of the Apache License-2.0, in which they gave "GPL compatibility" as a justification for the new license. Note that if you combine a GPL'd and an APL'd work, it's the GPL'd works license that is infringed, so the decision isn't up to the Apache group. The Apache guys might need a good clothes line.

          From FSF's license list [gnu.org]: The Apache Software License, version 2.0: This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL. The Apache Software License is incompatible with the GPL because it has a specific requirement that is not in the GPL: it has certain patent termination cases that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)

          • Some clarifications (Score:5, Informative)

            by jaaron ( 551839 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @07:47PM (#8425514) Homepage
            Did you read the most recent ASF position [apache.org] on this? The matter is due to a misunderstanding how patents work under the ASL versus how they work under the GPL. The matter will probably not be completely resolved until there is a better understanding of software patents and/or a court case involving patents and these open source license.

            One important point: GPL-compatibility was not the only "justification for the new license" by a long shot. That was one of many goals [apache.org], but not the main point of the license.

            So, there has been progress on this issue, but it's not as clear cut as you make it out.

      • Debian avoiding the new release?? (Score:5, Funny)

        by niom ( 638987 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @03:10PM (#8424047)
        XFree86 4.3 just got into Debian unstable. Debian won't arrive at avoiding 4.4 until eight or nine months from now.

        • Re:Debian avoiding the new release?? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by calc ( 1463 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @07:04PM (#8425290)
          Debian will probably switch to freedesktop.org packages much quicker than previous XFree86 packages due to upstream finally maintaining them properly. XFree86 was monolithic, freedesktop.org is not. XFree86 never cared about non-x86 architectures, it appears freedestkop.org will. XFree86 was a closed development model, freedesktop.org isn't...

      • Re:From the FAQ (Score:5, Funny)

        by FauxPasIII ( 75900 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @07:12PM (#8425318)
        > It prevents you including GPL-licensed code in an X server derived from
        > XFree86; that is enough reason for Debian to avoid the new release, it seems.

        Debian just moved X 4.3.0 into the unstable tree about a week and a half ago; I don't think any of us Debianistas were really worried about seeing XFree 4.4 in any of the three main Debian trunks this year anyway. ;)

    • Re:From the FAQ (Score:5, Informative)

      by petabyte ( 238821 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @02:56PM (#8423965)
      No, from what I'm told, the main reason to fork is the attitude taken by some members of the XFree Core Team. As you said, its their code and they can do what they want but the forking has already happened:

      Xouvert [xouvert.org]
      Freedesktop [freedesktop.org]
      Cygwin X [cygwin.com]

      Personally I don't see myself ever using XFree 4.4 and am looking forward to a complete release of fd.o. When that happens, I'll likely be moving everything I can off XFree but that's just me.

    • Re:From the FAQ (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Nuclear Elephant ( 700938 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @03:03PM (#8424002) Homepage
      No-one is going to be writing a new X-Server

      On the contrary, FreeDesktop.org is writing one, and it's A. much more promising (supports some neat things too like drop shadows and translucent menus), and B. based on the original XFree86 libraries.

      • Re:From the FAQ (Score:5, Informative)

        by msh104 ( 620136 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @03:39PM (#8424215)
        indeed, it is very neat. the problem is that all the drivers will need to be rewritten/ported. you can't just write wrappers around the old drivers. right now we only have fbdev/vesa stuff and some other stuff you really don't want to use right now. getting the drivers finisched right now is more important then ever.

    • Re:From the FAQ (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mmurphy000 ( 556983 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @03:05PM (#8424020)
      So, it seems that the main reason for a fork is no longer an issue ? No-one is going to be writing a new X-Server (well, I guess some of the embedded folks might, but that's about all I can think of), and they state that there's no issues with any client programs that you link with ... No problem for most of us then, unless it's for political reasons.

      I think part of the concern is over long-term intent. Mr. Dawes says [xfree86.org] applying the license to client-side libraries is "deferred", implying that it might be applied sometime later, though it appears that he thinks GPL compatibilty for the client-side libraries is somewhat important.

      ...I can see why they want to promote themselves in this world where perception is all.

      Apache used to have an advertising clause and dropped it, yet people still know about Apache. Moreover, the number of people who will even notice these "advertisements" are fairly few -- how many ordinary folk are going to read and understand these lists of attributions? If they want XFree86.org to be on everyone's lips (for positive reasons), they'll need something more than this clause.

  • What other alternatives? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by brainkiller ( 41196 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @02:52PM (#8423931) Homepage
    What other alternatives are there to Xfree?

  • Xserver (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MooKore 2004 ( 737557 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @02:52PM (#8423934) Homepage Journal
    Maybe its time to get more people looking at Xserver [freedesktop.org]?

    • Re:Xserver (Score:5, Informative)

      by erikharrison ( 633719 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @03:11PM (#8424057)
      XServer is an experimental project, based off of KDrive. It is -

      1) An experimental driver architecture

      2) An expertimental set of X extensions, dependent on the new driver architecture for performance reasons

      3) The umbrella for the Keiths more mainstream extensions to X, including XDamage (which is a dependency for the compositing extension).

      According to the guys on the XServer list, the XServer is not only not ready for prime time, but it may not ever be a real canidate for an XFree replacement because of it's experimental nature.

      • X servers on Freedesktop (Score:5, Informative)

        by Alan Cox ( 27532 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @04:13PM (#8424390) Homepage
        There are two X servers on freedesktop.org. One is Keiths experimental server the other is the X.org tree which is XFree 4.4 without the license change bits and with other stuff, and most of the people Dave Dawes fired working on it.

        The x.org server is very much ready for prime time

  • So they stick to the new license... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 29, 2004 @02:53PM (#8423942)
    Here's the deal.. if the new license isn't such a big deal, why doesn't the XFree group revert ot the old one? There is something in the new license that is really important to them, so its not exactly a minor wording change. If this were a lot of trouble over nothing, they would have backed off to a license they've _been_ releasing code under for years. I'll stick with the version that people with more legal experience than me say is best. I thank RMS and the distros for watching out for me by keeping up with these licensing issues.

    • Re:So they stick to the new license... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mehaiku ( 754091 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @03:17PM (#8424098) Homepage

      "why doesn't the XFree group revert ot the old one?"

      Let's not please. Have you seen how fast the latest Linux 2.6.3 kernel is? Now imagine combining that with the speed of the latest KDE 3.2.0. What ingredient is still missing? A forked, reworked, optimized Xserver perhaps? Please Xfree group, for the love of God, keep the license as it is.

    • Re:So they stick to the new license... (Score:5, Informative)

      by MoneyT ( 548795 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @03:18PM (#8424102) Journal
      Because as they say over and over, the old license didn't directly address binary only distributions. The new one does.

    • Re:So they stick to the new license... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by leereyno ( 32197 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @03:30PM (#8424162) Homepage Journal
      The problem is that this isn't a legal issue, its a political/ideological one. The fact that the FSF crowd coaches ideological arguments in legal terms doesn't mean there is a legal issue here.

      The FSF doesn't like the new license and begins telling people that it is incompatible with the GPL. Does that mean they are right? Does the GPL mean whatever the FSF decides it means that week? Or, in a country governed by the rule of law, does it mean no more and no less that what it be proven to mean in court? I don't know about you, but I tend to believe the latter

      More importantly, what exactly is the FSF supposed to do about people who don't agree with their current take and make use of Apache/XFree86-4.4 anyway? Are they going to sue them? Do they have the money, let alone the ability convince a court that the suit isn't frivilous? More importantly, can they afford the ill will that would result?

      I personally don't understand why XFree considers this change so important, but neither do I see it as a harmful one. They are not attempting to make any changes to how anyone uses their code, only asking that they receive recognition for their work. Isn't that something that RMS has been whining about for years with his GNU/Linux nonsense? He "corrects" people for calling Linux Linux every chance he gets. In fact I read an article where the author claimed that RMS refused to give an interview unless the article used his preferred terminology.

      What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

      Lee

      • Re:So they stick to the new license... (Score:5, Informative)

        by mst76 ( 629405 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @03:48PM (#8424259)
        The FSF doesn't like the new license and begins telling people that it is incompatible with the GPL. Does that mean they are right?
        I don't know, but from the FAQ it seems that The XFree86 Project Inc. agrees with the FSF here.
        They are not attempting to make any changes to how anyone uses their code, only asking that they receive recognition for their work. Isn't that something that RMS has been whining about for years with his GNU/Linux nonsense? He "corrects" people for calling Linux Linux every chance he gets.
        RMS can ask recognition from distributors, but he can't legally demand it. XFree86 just changed their license so that they can.

      • Re:So they stick to the new license... (Score:5, Informative)

        by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Sunday February 29, 2004 @03:58PM (#8424305) Homepage
        The FSF doesn't like the new license and begins telling people that it is incompatible with the GPL. Does that mean they are right? Does the GPL mean whatever the FSF decides it means that week?

        Well, the FSF did a very good job of backing up their claim that it is incompatible with the GPL. They pointed to the exact sections where the incompatibility occurs. Most people, including a number of the major Linux distributions, seem to agree with the FSF on this interpretation.

        The "this week" comment is misleading. The FSF has never changed their opinion on the correct interpretation of the GPL and has tried to make the implications of this interpretation as clear as possible from day one.

        More importantly, what exactly is the FSF supposed to do about people who don't agree with their current take and make use of Apache/XFree86-4.4 anyway? Are they going to sue them?

        If someone alters a GPL program such that the code is linked with code from an incompatible license, the copyright holder of that code is within their rights to order the distributor of the mixed code to stop. If that distributor does not stop, the copyright holder is within their rights to sue the distributor to make them stop.

        If the FSF were the copyright holder, they probably would sue if they absolutely had to in order to ensure compliance with the GPL. The FSF does hold the copyright on many open source projects, so this is a possibility.

        Do they have the money, let alone the ability convince a court that the suit isn't frivilous?

        Actually, yes, the main function of the FSF is to serve as a central copyright repository for open source and trust fund for the legal defense of those copyrights.

        More importantly, can they afford the ill will that would result?

        Can the open source software community afford to exist in a manner in which licenses are addressed in a slapdash, "oh that's close enough" manner? Since the nature of Open Source is to coordinate input from many contributors, the exact manner in which the rights and licensing to that input is marshalled is of extreme importance. The rights framework for open source needs to be clear and solid.

        Moreover, I'm not sure exactly how much ill will the FSF would garner for enforcing the requirement that if you redistribute GPLed code you follow the terms of the GPL, especially since, well, if the GPL isn't going to be complied with then why does it exist in the first place? The only ill will this would generate is among people who don't think anything should be GPLed ever, and they hate the FSF anyway, so what's the loss?

    • Re:So they stick to the new license... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by flossie ( 135232 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @04:19PM (#8424429) Homepage
      Here's the deal.. if the new license isn't such a big deal, why doesn't the XFree group revert ot the old one?

      Perhaps it is a big deal after all. Pure speculation, but it is possible that incompatability with the GPL is a deliberate attempt to prevent future changes to Xlib from being used by the freedesktop.org project now that they have packaged the library separately. I don't really see what useful purpose that would serve, but maybe things just got very, very bitter between the various personalities involved.

  • Aarrr... (Score:5, Funny)

    by wesman83 ( 700326 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @02:54PM (#8423949)
    the GPL be a harsh mistress....

  • Lets make it as complex as possible for everyone (Score:4, Insightful)

    by microbox ( 704317 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @02:54PM (#8423952)
    It's apparent that IP laws are more and more important to people who job is to write software.

  • Question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 29, 2004 @02:57PM (#8423970)
    The XF86 project is distributing the 4.4 code under only the new license.

    Have any of the individual XF86 *contributors* come forward and said their portions of 4.4 may be used under the previous license at the user's option?

    • Re:Question (Score:5, Informative)

      by polin8 ( 170866 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @03:59PM (#8424310) Homepage
      The only code that has changed license is the code Copyright Xfree86. Alan Cox, for example, refused to have his contributions under the new scheme. Individual contributors who retained copyright of their code can choose not to allow the new license. It doesn't solve the problem though.

  • Oh REALLY?!?!? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ZuperDee ( 161571 ) <zuperdee@nospAM.yahoo.com> on Sunday February 29, 2004 @02:59PM (#8423975) Homepage Journal
    It looks as if the XFree86 people have a short timespan to either rethink their license changes or be dropped from every/almost every Linux distribution in favor of a forked codebase.

    Am I the only one here who thinks it is possible that license change or not, some distributions are getting ready to dump XFree86 in ANY case, due to the other problems it has, like the general arrogance of the core developers, and the lack of a truly open development community, which is largely their doing?

    Seriously, I don't think the license change is the major reason, but simply the right occasion for dumping XFree86. Even if they were to revert the license change tomorrow, I for one would still favor seeing forks like Freedesktop.org's server make it into distros, because I believe the license change is only one of MANY indications that XFree86 has far deeper problems that I'm not so sure can be fixed so easily. Just like many organizations and projects in real life, the PEOPLE behind the project are the greatest asset, and I think the XFree86 core team has failed to recognize this. Unless the core team gets a total attitude makeover, I doubt this will ever change.

  • The last version of X? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ars-Fartsica ( 166957 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @03:02PM (#8423999)
    This is the first version of X that many of its end packagers (linux distros, bsds, etc) have explicitly rejected. What will be the motivation to pursue further development that no one is using? This group just (xFree) 86'd themselves with petty sqaubbling. Thanks for the memories but I think its goodnight Vienna for XFree86.

  • Hopeful about the post-X era (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ars-Fartsica ( 166957 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @03:06PM (#8424024)
    Can we get rid of a system that resolves all dependencies internally? (would like to finish a compile this year)

    Can we get rid of the X11R6 subdir? (once again, stop thinking X is a world to itself)?

    Just two suggestions for the post-XFree86 era.

  • And XFree86 Inc. has shown to be willing to talk (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 29, 2004 @03:16PM (#8424089)
    The XFree86 Inc. (that is their board) has shown to be willing to discuss actual issues and concerns. If you look at the first reply to RMS's message in the XFree86 Forum, it is from David Dawes of XFree86 and his willing ness to discuss concerns [xfree86.org] about the license change.

    It is not clear why XFree86 has to modify their license to suit a Linux distribution [debian.org], which is suppose to be a compilation of Free/Open Source Linux software, not a dictator of Open Source.

    If these arm chair lawyers are so concerned about GPL, why don't they write a new X Window System from scratch, and release it for free/Free under the GPL.

  • And you realize... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Karpe ( 1147 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @03:20PM (#8424113) Homepage
    that by posting it on slashdot, you just ruined what might have been "the only way to get it for the moment", don't you?

    But if we have to f'up the server right, how about linking to the release notes [xfree86.org]?

  • XFree86 and licensing (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sandmann ( 182819 ) <sandmann@daimi.au.dk> on Sunday February 29, 2004 @03:25PM (#8424130)
    I think it is worth pointing out that back in 1998 The Open Group (now known as X.org) changed the licensing of X R6.4 to be proprietary, and only backed down when XFree86 and David Dawes explained exactly what they could with their proprietary server.

    XFree86 is the reason we have a free software X server today. It is quite ironic that slashdot is now hating XFree86 because of licensing.

    • Re:XFree86 and licensing (Score:5, Interesting)

      by leandrod ( 17766 ) <l.dutras@org> on Sunday February 29, 2004 @09:39PM (#8425992) Homepage Journal
      >
      back in 1998 The Open Group (now known as X.org) changed the licensing of X R6.4 to be proprietary, and only backed down when XFree86 and David Dawes explained exactly what they could with their proprietary server.

      Not quite. I had a sideline participation at the time, emailing the X folks and putting them in contact with RMS.

      In fact RMS and X were working out an agreement to GNU GPL the whole shebang, thus keeping it free while preserving The Open Group's interests, but XFree was adamant against it.

      That move at the time would have preserved X.org, which today is basically a non-entity.

  • So we stick with 4.3. Big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @03:33PM (#8424178) Homepage Journal
    Instead of freaking out, we as a community just drop 4.4 out the window, and stick with 4.3 until a viable alternative X server comes out.

    As long as someone still develops drivers for 4.3, its not the end of the world. ( yes, its a major speed bump and makes the OSS world look stupid for the bickering.. but its not a show stopper )

    And remember its just the XF86Free implementation that is hosed up now, not the X11 protocol..

  • When Announcing A New Version Of Something (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vigilology ( 664683 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @03:37PM (#8424198)
    Perhaps it's best to list the main changes or include a link to the changelog.

  • another nice article... (Score:5, Informative)

    by gerbouille ( 663639 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @03:39PM (#8424208) Homepage

    there's a nice article [osnews.com] on OSnews which looks back on the whole XFree86 affair of past year ...

  • About the ad clause (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PotatoHead ( 12771 ) * <doug.opengeek@org> on Sunday February 29, 2004 @03:50PM (#8424265) Homepage Journal
    These guys are wanting some attention, so they whine a little and get nothing. Then they force the issue and get the wrong sort.

    Seems to me, credit is given where credit is due. If they actually were doing something worth really knowing about, wouldn't they actually get it? We have been seeing little spats happen for long enough now to raise a few eyebrows. Personally, I suspect some deeper problems behind this.

    We need an active X development group that does everything it can to enable *nix systems to continue to develop. We don't need these petty squabbles.

    Those of us who know what X brings to the table are happy using X. Replacing it really should not be an option at this point; however, I see plenty of folks not happy with X as it is today.

    This is exactly why they are not getting the attention they crave. The job is not being done well enough plain and simple.

    Fork or no, this is going to continue to be a problem until a group forms that can step up to the plate and hit a few home runs. Will it be the XFree guys or somebody else?

    Whoever gets X development moving as it needs to will get all the attention they need. Stupid license clauses won't cut it.

  • Just Wondering If This Is What Dawes et al. Want? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by judmarc ( 649183 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @04:11PM (#8424377)

    I noticed when Googling around about Dawes that (besides the fact that apparently he lives rather close to me) he is running a business based on X, offering stuff like automagic configuration (at least some of which has made it into the X CVS). Could dropping the latest X from the major Linux distros leave Dawes as the only game in town for enterprises seeking the most enterprise-ready solution? And he wouldn't have to take responsibility for pulling it from his competition....

  • Remember XFree... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sla291 ( 757668 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @04:25PM (#8424454)
    XFree is dying, maybe.

    Most say that it sucks. I say it's not perfect but check this website : http://www.lynucs.org/ [lynucs.org]

    and you'll see that X can really make your desktop very eye-candy. (well, perhaps you already knew ;)

    Don't blame XFree too much.. we're pretty all using it, even it may be the time to move on.

  • The fork has already happened. (Score:5, Informative)

    by mst76 ( 629405 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @05:05PM (#8424676)
    It appears to be pretty recent, and not yet advertised, but freedesktop.org has forked [freedesktop.org] Xfree86 from 4.4 RC2 [freedesktop.org]. Note: this independent from their own experimental X server [freedesktop.org] to which everybody is referring (but which is not really ready for consumption yet). If XFree86 doesn't revert to the old license, distributors are likely going to package the freedesktop fork. It remains to be seen if the major XFree86 developers will follow.

  • RMS doesn't like it? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EvilAlien ( 133134 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @05:29PM (#8424831) Journal
    Someone should tell the XFree86 people, because they seem to think otherwise. The bit on the XFree86 Project License Modification [xfree86.org] says:
    The XFree86 Project, Inc is announcing that it has made a change to its license effective with the Third Release Candidate for the 4.4.0 series. This licence, like our previous, is fully free, (how do we know this? no less than the world authority on free software, RMS, has said so) and it's the hope of the XFree86 Project to no longer allow non-free licences into our tree so we can become a fully free-software compliant X product.
    Whatever the issue is, Open Source is going to suffer for this squabble. The GPL acting as a roadblock to integration of new technology for the desktop is just going to prove Microsoft's point that the license is eeeeevvuuuuull. I think this may do more real damage to "The Cause" then the fiaSCO.

    • Re:RMS doesn't like it? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Alan Cox ( 27532 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @05:38PM (#8424871) Homepage
      Actually I think the unfortunate thing is that people have spent a year being pseudo-nice to each other instead of just forking the tree when Keith got kicked out. Thats probably done more harm than good.

      The problem with the license is one of changes. You can't go around springing new licensing suprises on people without expecting them to be upset - whatever the license (as MS themselves have found ...)

      Now its over everyone can back to work sanely and Dave Dawes can go and do his own thing in Dawes-space, or throw in the towel and contribute to the X.org tree. I still hope the latter because I don't think Dave Dawes did anything maliciously or without belieiving he was doing the right thing for X, he just seems to have been wrong.

      Alan

      Alan

      • XFree86/freedesktop-kernel interaction? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @09:26PM (#8425946) Journal
        Alan,

        I dunno how much you dabble with the related code, but how likely is a fork of X going to be to cause issues with the fact that X interfaces with kernel modules...say, freedesktop.org wants to go one way, and XFree86 wants to go another...which supporting code goes in the kernel, or is that a non-issue? I know that it's already caused fun for the Red Hat packagers, who never really expected to have to support multiple XFree86-libs-style packages...

  • With my tinfoil hat on... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jejones ( 115979 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @06:31PM (#8425117) Journal
    Isn't MS laughing over this whole affair?

    Graphics card makers refuse to release info allowing Open Source drivers to take full advantage of their hardware; heck, people gush over the major proctalgia of NVidia's driver that you get to recompile every time there's a kernel upgrade.

    Now XFree86 decides to change its license in a way that is incompatible with GPL, so that Linux distributions refuse to use XFree86 4.4. The free alternatives (freedesktop.org, Y, etc.) need rewritten drivers. Does anyone think the hardware vendors will write multiple drivers when it's hard enough to pry one out of them?

    PCI Express is on its way, and the claim is that it will kill AGP. How long will one be able to survive with a free X, or XFree86 4.3? (Not a rhetorical question; I don't know enough about the hardware to say, and really would like an answer.)

  • Let's talk about something other than the licence (Score:5, Insightful)

    by osho_gg ( 652984 ) on Sunday February 29, 2004 @06:50PM (#8425223)
    OK. Enough talking about licence changes. How about talking about the new release and what new exciting things it provides? I browsed through the entire release notes and could not find a single thing that will get me excited about trying out the new release. Nothing like, xrandr in 4.3 release or sub-pixel anti-aliased fonts in 4.1/4.2. In fact, nothing other than bug fixes that would benefit X for desktop user. I guess Keith Packard's absense is being felt in this release notes. Am I missing something that you noticed?

Slashdot Top Deals

Do molecular biologists wear designer genes?

Close