[gentoo-dev] No XFree86 w/ new license
Donnie Berkholz
tree, so don't be surprised when 4.3.99.903 doesn't show up with the new
license.
I won't elaborate on the reasons because it's been discussed quite
thoroughly in other forums [2-8].
We are seeking solutions/alternatives for this issue, so you can sit
back, relax and let us do the dirty work.
Thanks,
Donnie
1. http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licenses
2. http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-February/003918.html
3. http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-February/003941.html
4. http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-February/004021.html
5. http://archives.mandrakelinux.com/cooker/2004-02/msg04596.php
6.
http://freedesktop.org/pipermail/x-packagers/2004-February/000004.html
7.
http://freedesktop.org/pipermail/x-packagers/2004-February/000003.html
8.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200402/msg00011.html
Donnie Berkholz
> I won't elaborate on the reasons because it's been discussed quite
> thoroughly in other forums [2-8].
Addendum:
9. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=107696705911864&w=2
Donnie Berkholz
> thoroughly in other forums [2-8].
As usual, I got the call for clarification etc. from Grant, so here it
is.
Here's a few thoughts on this, and a few worthwhile quotes from the
references I supplied earlier and elsewhere. Note that I am not a
lawyer.
The wording of XFree86's license is quite vague. While its author has
interpreted various parts of it on mailing lists, he has failed to
clarify the license itself to match his interpretations.
If Gentoo distributes a GPL program or driver that can build against any
of the XFree86-licensed sources (for example, the SDK), Gentoo probably
violates the GPL. If Gentoo distributes a GPL XFree86 driver (for
example, x11-misc/synaptics) that can load into this X server, Gentoo
probably violates the GPL.
The development model of XFree86 is very closed. Multiple developers
have stopped contributing to the project and begun maintaining things
elsewhere because of this closed model.
If Gentoo starts acknowledging ANY third-party contributions, it would
be required to start acknowledging XFree86 as well. This takes up space
in the docs, costs money to print and time to deal with, etc.
"[Our distribution] is a strong supporter of open source software and
technologies, and the new XFree86 license seems to be intended to
restricting existing freedom for no real world technical or other
gains. At least no gains that are beneficial to the community."
The new clause of the XFree86 license:
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.
Part of the GPL:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
"3) Where is the derivative work boundary ?
The problem is further muddled by the place where the boundary for
something being considered a derivative work. The GPL, contrary to the
LGPL, considers that everything linked with a another binary is a
derivative work of it. I believe that this is mostly done so that
someone could not modify or extend a GPLed library by putting the
modified work in a wrapper or in the binary itself, which the LGPL
allows for dynamic linking, and for static linking with some additional
work. In our case, the problem is the opposite, since the XFree86
libraries may impose their further restrictions to the GPLed code, even
if it is the GPL here who cross the boundary."
Here's a list of files the new license was applied to:
xc/config/util/:
cleanlinks.sh revpath.c
xc/lib/GLw/:
Imakefile
xc/lib/font/FreeType/module/:
ftmodule.c
xc/lib/font/Speedo/module/:
speedomod.c
xc/lib/font/Type1/module/:
type1mod.c
xc/lib/font/X-TrueType/module/:
xttmodule.c
xc/lib/font/bitmap/module/:
bitmapmod.c
xc/programs/Xserver/Xext/:
sleepuntil.h xf86misc.c
xc/programs/Xserver/afb/:
afbmodule.c
xc/programs/Xserver/cfb/:
cfb16.h cfb24.h cfb32.h cfbmodule.c cfbunmap.h
xc/programs/Xserver/cfb16/:
cfbmodule.c
xc/programs/Xserver/cfb24/:
cfbmodule.c
xc/programs/Xserver/cfb32/:
cfbmodule.c
xc/programs/Xserver/fb/:
fbmodule.c
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/:
CHANGELOG Options XF86Conf.cpp XF98Conf.cpp xf86Date.h
xf86Version.h
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/common/:
atKeynames.h compiler.h fourcc.h scoasm.h xf86.h
xf86Beta.c xf86Bus.c xf86Bus.h xf86Config.h xf86Cursor.c
xf86DPMS.c xf86Debug.c xf86DoProbe.c xf86DoScanPci.c
xf86Events.c xf86Globals.c xf86Helper.c xf86InPriv.h
xf86Init.c xf86Io.c xf86Kbd.c xf86KbdBSD.c xf86KbdLnx.c
xf86Keymap.h xf86MiscExt.c xf86Mode.c xf86Module.h
xf86Opt.h xf86Option.c xf86PM.c xf86PciInfo.h xf86Priv.h
xf86Privstr.h xf86Resources.h xf86Versions.c
xf86VidMode.c xf86XKB.c xf86Xinput.c xf86Xinput.h
xf86cmap.c xf86cmap.h xf86fbBus.c xf86fbman.c xf86fbman.h
xf86isaBus.c xf86noBus.c xf86pciBus.c xf86pciBus.h
xf86str.h xf86xv.h xf86xvmc.c xf86xvmc.h xf86xvpriv.h
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/doc/sgml/:
LICENSE.sgml
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/s3/:
newmmio.h
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/s3virge/:
Imakefile newmmio.h regs3v.h s3v.h s3v_accel.c s3v_dac.c
s3v_dga.c s3v_driver.c s3v_hwcurs.c s3v_i2c.c
s3v_macros.h
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/savage/:
Imakefile savage_dga.c savage_i2c.c
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/tseng/:
tseng_clock.c tseng_ramdac.c
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/etc/:
pcitweak.c
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/input/mouse/:
mouse.h mousePriv.h
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/loader/:
dixsym.c dlloader.c extsym.c fontsym.c loader.c loader.h
loaderProcs.h loadext.c loadfont.c loadmod.c misym.c os.c
xf86sym.c
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/:
assyntax.h int10Defines.h xf86OSmouse.h xf86OSpriv.h
xf86_ansic.h xf86_libc.h
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/bsd/:
bsd_kqueue_apm.c bsd_mouse.c
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/bsdi/:
bsdi_mouse.c
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/bus/:
460gxPCI.c 460gxPCI.h Pci.c Pci.h e8870PCI.c e8870PCI.h
ia64Pci.c ix86Pci.c netbsdPci.c sparcPci.c xf86Pci.h
zx1PCI.c zx1PCI.h
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/linux/:
lnx_mouse.c
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/lynxos/:
lynx_mouse.c
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/pmax/:
pmax_mouse.c
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/shared/:
agp_noop.c at_scancode.c kbd.c kmod_noop.c libc_wrapper.c
pm_noop.c posix_tty.c sigio.c sigiostubs.c stdPci.c
stdResource.c vidmem.c xf86Axp.c
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/sunos/:
Imakefile sun_mouse.c
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/sysv/:
sysv_mouse.c
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/parser/:
Configint.h Device.c Files.c Flags.c Input.c Keyboard.c
Layout.c Module.c Monitor.c Pointer.c Screen.c Vendor.c
Video.c configProcs.h read.c scan.c write.c xf86Optrec.h
xf86Parser.h xf86tokens.h
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/scanpci/:
pciid2c.pl xf86PciData.h xf86PciStr.h xf86ScanPci.h
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/vgahw/:
vgaHW.c vgaHW.h vgaHWmodule.c
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/xf1bpp/:
mfbmodule.c xf1bpp.h
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/xf4bpp/:
vgamodule.c
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/xf86cfg/:
config.h
xc/programs/Xserver/mfb/:
mfbmodule.c
xc/programs/Xserver/mi/:
micoord.h
xc/programs/Xserver/os/:
log.c
xc/programs/fstobdf/:
fstobdf.h
xc/programs/twm/:
session.h
xc/programs/xfs/include/:
difs.h
xc/programs/xmag/:
CutPaste.h
xc/programs/xmessage/:
readfile.h xmessage.h
That's a start.
Thanks,
Donnie
Spider
> We won't be adding versions of XFree86 with the 1.1 license [1] to the
> tree, so don't be surprised when 4.3.99.903 doesn't show up with the
> new license.
>
> I won't elaborate on the reasons because it's been discussed quite
> thoroughly in other forums [2-8].
>
> We are seeking solutions/alternatives for this issue, so you can sit
> back, relax and let us do the dirty work.
>
Good decision, Donnie. In unrelated news, how does things go for the
freedesktop xserver project (xlibs, xserver)? (status! Status!) ;)
//Spider
--
begin .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end
Donnie Berkholz
> Good decision, Donnie. In unrelated news, how does things go for the
> freedesktop xserver project (xlibs, xserver)? (status! Status!) ;)
Gentoo news:
Pending upstream news.
Upstream news:
xlibs have gone through their 1.0 release, although problems still exist
(for example, libXt requires XFree86 to be installed to build properly,
although a fix is not difficult and initial patches have already been
made).
As for the xserver project, the kdrive architecture won't be turning
into a replacement for XFree86. However some work is being done to
import the XFree86 DDX into there, so drivers etc will build and work.
xserver.freedesktop.org and xlibs.freedesktop.org have more info.
Thanks,
Donnie
--
Donnie Berkholz
Desktop project co-manager,
Cluster project co-lead,
X team lead,
Developer Relations,
Developer
Gentoo Linux
CJ Kucera
> If Gentoo distributes a GPL program or driver that can build against any
> of the XFree86-licensed sources (for example, the SDK), Gentoo probably
> violates the GPL. If Gentoo distributes a GPL XFree86 driver (for
> example, x11-misc/synaptics) that can load into this X server, Gentoo
> probably violates the GPL.
Perhaps what I'm about to ask about has already been discussed and
beaten to death personally, but I would have thought that Gentoo would
be somewhat immune to this particular problem, because it doesn't
so much distribute XFree as provide an automated way to fetch and
compile it. I suppose that there may be a problem with distributing
binary packages or something, and maybe Gentoo would be unable to
mirror the X sources on its mirror system, but how would the addition
of an XFree 4.4 ebuild in the Portage tree be considered an actual
distribution of the program?
Again, it's possible this has been already gone over a hundred times
already, in which case feel free to just ignore me. :)
-CJ
--
WOW: Kakistocracy | "The ships hung in the sky in much the same
apocalyptech.com/wow | way that bricks don't." - Douglas Adams,
p...@apocalyptech.com | _The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy_
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Paul de Vrieze
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 18 February 2004 15:50, CJ Kucera wrote:
>
> Perhaps what I'm about to ask about has already been discussed and
> beaten to death personally, but I would have thought that Gentoo would
> be somewhat immune to this particular problem, because it doesn't
> so much distribute XFree as provide an automated way to fetch and
> compile it. I suppose that there may be a problem with distributing
> binary packages or something, and maybe Gentoo would be unable to
> mirror the X sources on its mirror system, but how would the addition
> of an XFree 4.4 ebuild in the Portage tree be considered an actual
> distribution of the program?
We also sell livecd's. Further we have mirrors that distribute xfree and
iso's that include xfree. As X is a quite necessary package we also
cannot really remove it from the GRP package list either. In short, we
have big problems with this too, although I agree that we are in a
better position than binary distributions.
Paul
- --
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pau...@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAM30YbKx5DBjWFdsRAqEnAJ0ZmEtxWgGpWDSLrdkHK87zX6B27ACg5FYU
zxg82lgTL64ImyvAOI22kHo=
=YO03
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
CJ Kucera
> We also sell livecd's. Further we have mirrors that distribute xfree and
> iso's that include xfree. As X is a quite necessary package we also
> cannot really remove it from the GRP package list either. In short, we
> have big problems with this too, although I agree that we are in a
> better position than binary distributions.
Yeah, I figured that livecds and GRP packages would have to stay at
the 4.3 version. But I'm still a bit hazy on what would prevent a
simple ebuild from living in Portage's tree. It seems to me that,
among the 300+ licenses which *are* acceptable in Portage, this new
one couldn't be the "worst" of them. Wasn't there some work being
done to provide an "ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES" var or something? So
someone not wanting to deal with the extra requirements in the
new XFree license wouldn't have to worry about having it installed.
Donnie Berkholz
> Yeah, I figured that livecds and GRP packages would have to stay at
> the 4.3 version. But I'm still a bit hazy on what would prevent a
> simple ebuild from living in Portage's tree. It seems to me that,
> among the 300+ licenses which *are* acceptable in Portage, this new
> one couldn't be the "worst" of them. Wasn't there some work being
> done to provide an "ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES" var or something? So
> someone not wanting to deal with the extra requirements in the
> new XFree license wouldn't have to worry about having it installed.
Here's a paragraph I wrote earlier:
"If Gentoo distributes a GPL program or driver that can build against
any of the XFree86-licensed sources (for example, the SDK), Gentoo
probably violates the GPL. If Gentoo distributes a GPL XFree86 driver
(for example, x11-misc/synaptics) that can load into this X server,
Gentoo probably violates the GPL."
This is because the GPL requires the complete work to be licensed
without any additional restrictions than the GPL, and the complete work
would include any files the synaptics driver built against, and
potentially even any files in the X server the synaptics driver loads
into. The new license creates such restrictions in multiple files that
are built into the resulting X server. I haven't researched whether the
exact files the synaptics driver builds against are under this new
license, but it's quite possible that the "complete work" would be
considered not just those files but the complete SDK (software
development kit), which external drivers such as synaptics can build
against.
It's not that the new license of XFree86 explicitly prevents us from
providing it, rather that when combined with the GPL of various external
drivers the results are questionable. Just settling to not provide these
drivers is unacceptable.
And again, there are other issues that I mentioned in my earlier email
such as the closed development and so forth. This license change is more
significant when viewed in context of what else has been going on within
XFree86. I'll refer you to my old reference list and the
de...@xfree86.org and fo...@xfree86.org archives for more information --
Google for them if you can't find them.
Thanks,
Donnie
--
Donnie Berkholz
Desktop project co-manager,
Cluster project co-lead,
Developer Relations,
Gentoo Linux
CJ Kucera
> Here's a paragraph I wrote earlier:
>
> "If Gentoo distributes a GPL program or driver that can build against
> any of the XFree86-licensed sources (for example, the SDK), Gentoo
> probably violates the GPL. If Gentoo distributes a GPL XFree86 driver
> (for example, x11-misc/synaptics) that can load into this X server,
> Gentoo probably violates the GPL."
Well, I'm probably just not nuanced enough with this kind of licensing
mess, but so long as Gentoo isn't providing the actual code for 4.4,
compiled or otherwise, I'm afraid I just don't see the problem. Yes,
somebody could use an XFree 4.4 ebuild, link some other programs against
it, and then be violating the GPL, but I don't see how that's any
different from someone merely installing XFree 4.4 themselves, or
creating their own ebuild for 4.4, and doing the same.
One of the things I've always liked about Gentoo is that since it
rarely actually *distributes* software, it's just providing instructions
on how to get the software up and running. You may be providing some
GPL driver that *can* be linked against 4.4, but it wouldn't be violating
the GPL itself.
But regardless, like I said, I've doubtless got an incomplete
understanding of the whole situation, so I suppose I'll just keep
quiet about it. :)
Thanks for the explanations,
James H. Cloos Jr.
CJ> Yes, somebody could use an XFree 4.4 ebuild, link
CJ> some other programs against it, and then be violating the GPL,
No, they would not be violating the GPL unless they then
*distributed the combined result*.
The GPL does not regulate use, only distribution.
-JimC
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Donnie Berkholz
> Well, I'm probably just not nuanced enough with this kind of licensing
> mess, but so long as Gentoo isn't providing the actual code for 4.4,
> compiled or otherwise, I'm afraid I just don't see the problem. Yes,
> somebody could use an XFree 4.4 ebuild, link some other programs against
> it, and then be violating the GPL, but I don't see how that's any
> different from someone merely installing XFree 4.4 themselves, or
> creating their own ebuild for 4.4, and doing the same.
>
> One of the things I've always liked about Gentoo is that since it
> rarely actually *distributes* software, it's just providing instructions
> on how to get the software up and running. You may be providing some
> GPL driver that *can* be linked against 4.4, but it wouldn't be violating
> the GPL itself.
Perhaps you failed to notice our mirroring system. =)
Chris Gianelloni
> > Here's a paragraph I wrote earlier:
> >
> > "If Gentoo distributes a GPL program or driver that can build against
> > any of the XFree86-licensed sources (for example, the SDK), Gentoo
> > probably violates the GPL. If Gentoo distributes a GPL XFree86 driver
> > (for example, x11-misc/synaptics) that can load into this X server,
> > Gentoo probably violates the GPL."
>
> Well, I'm probably just not nuanced enough with this kind of licensing
> mess, but so long as Gentoo isn't providing the actual code for 4.4,
> compiled or otherwise, I'm afraid I just don't see the problem. Yes,
> somebody could use an XFree 4.4 ebuild, link some other programs against
> it, and then be violating the GPL, but I don't see how that's any
> different from someone merely installing XFree 4.4 themselves, or
> creating their own ebuild for 4.4, and doing the same.
Our *distribution* probably would not be affected, but our LiveCDs,
GameCDs, and GRP definitely would be affected.
> One of the things I've always liked about Gentoo is that since it
> rarely actually *distributes* software, it's just providing instructions
> on how to get the software up and running. You may be providing some
> GPL driver that *can* be linked against 4.4, but it wouldn't be violating
> the GPL itself.
>
> But regardless, like I said, I've doubtless got an incomplete
> understanding of the whole situation, so I suppose I'll just keep
> quiet about it. :)
>
> Thanks for the explanations,
> CJ
--
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team
Is your power animal a pengiun?
CJ Kucera
> Our *distribution* probably would not be affected, but our LiveCDs,
> GameCDs, and GRP definitely would be affected.
Yeah, of course, and I wasn't suggesting that 4.4 be used for LiveCDs,
GameCDs, or GRP; all I was looking for was an ebuild... (this after
I said I'd keep quiet about it. :P)
So yeah, by all means, stick with 4.3 for those.
-CJ
CJ Kucera
> No, they would not be violating the GPL unless they then
> *distributed the combined result*.
>
> The GPL does not regulate use, only distribution.
Ah, yes, of course, I had forgotten about that, too. Good point...
-CJ
Paul de Vrieze
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 02:09:05PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Our *distribution* probably would not be affected, but our LiveCDs,
> > GameCDs, and GRP definitely would be affected.
>
> Yeah, of course, and I wasn't suggesting that 4.4 be used for LiveCDs,
> GameCDs, or GRP; all I was looking for was an ebuild... (this after
> I said I'd keep quiet about it. :P)
>
> So yeah, by all means, stick with 4.3 for those.
It is also about forming a united front against XFree. Basically XFree wants
to force impossible conditions upon the distributors. Added to that the whole
mess of openness, lack of progress, and not in the least the whole Keith
Packard mess, and I believe that we should not start with giving in.
Paul
Andrew Cowie
> It is also about forming a united front against XFree. Basically XFree wants
> to force impossible conditions upon the distributors. Added to that the whole
> mess of openness, lack of progress, and not in the least the whole Keith
> Packard mess, and I believe that we should not start with giving in.
I saw Keith last month (he was one of the speakers we had at
Linux.Conf.Au) and you would *drool* over the stuff he's working on.
example - transparent windows (including transparent drop down menus!)
[And it's only partially a CPU hog!]...
I'd say that wherever Keith's work ends up, the net result of the
freedesktop.org stack will be an excellent and interoperable graphics
platform.
I use Gentoo because it's lack of fussiness and imposed dogma on most of
these sorts of issues, but I'm not worried about the stand taken here.
xfree is self destructing anyway.
I would suggest that in the spirit of inclusiveness that you put a 4.4
ebuild together eventually, but never ever un-mask it, and have loud
comments in the ebuild about why. Hell - even call it something else -
"xfree-notfree" :) ? That way, if someone really wants 4.4 they can get
it, but it won't appear as an upgrade from 4.3, and everyone else will
stay happy and not be tempted to go there by accident or habit.
AfC
Canberra
--
Andrew Frederick Cowie
Operational Dynamics Consulting Pty Ltd
Australia +61 2 9977 6866 North America +1 646 472 5054
http://www.operationaldynamics.com/
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Donnie Berkholz
> I would suggest that in the spirit of inclusiveness that you put a 4.4
> ebuild together eventually, but never ever un-mask it, and have loud
> comments in the ebuild about why. Hell - even call it something else -
> "xfree-notfree" :) ? That way, if someone really wants 4.4 they can get
> it, but it won't appear as an upgrade from 4.3, and everyone else will
> stay happy and not be tempted to go there by accident or habit.
As I've stated elsewhere, this may not be legally possible for Gentoo
while simultaneously providing GPL drivers. I'd rather not press the
issue.
Clay Culver
> [snip]
> I would suggest that in the spirit of inclusiveness that you put a 4.4
> ebuild together eventually, but never ever un-mask it, and have loud
> comments in the ebuild about why. Hell - even call it something else -
> "xfree-notfree" :) ? That way, if someone really wants 4.4 they can get
> it, but it won't appear as an upgrade from 4.3, and everyone else will
> stay happy and not be tempted to go there by accident or habit.
host it on their own site. Moreover, if anyone just *has* to have xfree they
can go download it and build it themselves. Nothing is preventing that
either.
--
Clay Culver <clay [at] bitshifters.org>
Computer Science & Mathematics
West Georgia University
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
CJ Kucera
> As I've stated elsewhere, this may not be legally possible for Gentoo
> while simultaneously providing GPL drivers. I'd rather not press the
> issue.
Yeah, works for me. Thanks for entertaining my questions and all. :)
Svyatogor
I went other various discussions, read the new XFree license a lot of
times and still do not get what is the problem with it?
Escpet for point 3 (which is not a big issue, is it?) the rest of the
license is very simmilar, if not identicale, to BSD.
Could someone plz point me to those words in new version which cause all
the troubles?
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> We won't be adding versions of XFree86 with the 1.1 license [1] to the
> tree, so don't be surprised when 4.3.99.903 doesn't show up with the new
> license.
Wkr,
--
Sergey Kuleshov <svya...@gentoo.org>
Home Page: http://dev.gentoo.org/~sergey
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Jason Rhinelander
> ...
> We are seeking solutions/alternatives for this issue, so you can sit
> back, relax and let us do the dirty work.
For curiousity's sake (as I'm sure I'm not the only one curious), what
alternatives are being considered, or possible/practicle?
--
-- Jason Rhinelander
-- Gossamer Threads, Inc.
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Donnie Berkholz
> The question I'm gonna ask might sound dumb, but still.
> I went other various discussions, read the new XFree license a lot of
> times and still do not get what is the problem with it?
>
> Escpet for point 3 (which is not a big issue, is it?) the rest of the
> license is very simmilar, if not identicale, to BSD.
>
> Could someone plz point me to those words in new version which cause all
> the troubles?
OK, let me lay it out as concisely as possible.
1) XFree86 license 1.1 _requires_ attribution with other third-party
attributions.
2) This requirement is an additional restriction beyond what the GPL
itself restricts.
3) The GPL prohibits any additional restrictions.
From these three points we conclude:
4) The XFree86 license 1.1 is incompatible with the GPL.
Donnie Berkholz
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > ...
> > We are seeking solutions/alternatives for this issue, so you can sit
> > back, relax and let us do the dirty work.
>
> For curiousity's sake (as I'm sure I'm not the only one curious), what
> alternatives are being considered, or possible/practicle?
I imagine something usable will crop up, if enough people are
dissatisfied with the status quo.
Stewart Honsberger
>>Could someone plz point me to those words in new version which cause all
>>the troubles?
>
>
> OK, let me lay it out as concisely as possible.
>
> 1) XFree86 license 1.1 _requires_ attribution with other third-party
> attributions.
>
> 2) This requirement is an additional restriction beyond what the GPL
> itself restricts.
>
> 3) The GPL prohibits any additional restrictions.
>
> From these three points we conclude:
>
> 4) The XFree86 license 1.1 is incompatible with the GPL.
So the only problem with this whole mess is that the XFree people want
us to give them credit in the same place and mannar as we already give
other third parties credit?
XFree86, pending a replacement, is the only thing giving Linux any
credibility as a desktop operating system. Therefore, I would say it's
rather an integral part of the acceptance of our distribution and OS as
a whole. As such, I wouldn't think a one-liner in a README, INSTALL, or
product literature is such a Big Stinking Deal.
It's not like they're making the software non-free, they're not
demanding royalties, they're not prohibiting the software from being
distributed, they're just asking for due credit.
Think of it from their point of view; when some Joe Schmoe starts up X,
they see what - KDE or Gnome. What do they think is providing them a
GUI? KDE or Gnome. They don't realize that underneath these environments
is a hard-working old man spewing 2D/3D rendering instructions to their
video cards and keeping the windows from falling off the screen. All
they want is a small heads-up. Is that so wrong?
I'd really like a point-by-point dissection of the objectionable license
changes so we can see the exact reasons why it's unacceptable. Thus far
here, other distribution mail list archives, and even on the LKML all
I've seen is vague accusations that XFree86 is "no longer free" and
"unacceptable" for inclusion/distribution.
Thank-you in advance for helping us understand a potentially
earth-shattering situation over which we seem to have no control.
--
Stewart Honsberger - http://blackdeath.snerk.org/
To teach is to learn twice.
-- Joseph Joubert
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Tal Peer
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
[snip]
> > From these three points we conclude:
> >
> > 4) The XFree86 license 1.1 is incompatible with the GPL.
>
> So the only problem with this whole mess is that the XFree people want
> us to give them credit in the same place and mannar as we already give
> other third parties credit?
>
> XFree86, pending a replacement, is the only thing giving Linux any
> credibility as a desktop operating system. Therefore, I would say it's
> rather an integral part of the acceptance of our distribution and OS as
> a whole. As such, I wouldn't think a one-liner in a README, INSTALL, or
> product literature is such a Big Stinking Deal.
>
> It's not like they're making the software non-free, they're not
> demanding royalties, they're not prohibiting the software from being
> distributed, they're just asking for due credit.
>
But that's not the point.
The point is that the incompatability between the (new) X license and the GPL
plus the presence of GPL drivers for X makes the portage tree tainted,
license-wise.. or something along those lines.
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Luke-Jr
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 19 February 2004 10:18 pm, Tal Peer wrote:
> But that's not the point.
> The point is that the incompatability between the (new) X license and the
> GPL plus the presence of GPL drivers for X makes the portage tree tainted,
> license-wise.. or something along those lines.
Any reason such drivers cannot DEPEND on XFree<3.4 (or wherever the new
license's usage begins)?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFANTwqZl/BHdU+lYMRAmDGAJwKeQoZ4N0gzFxcMSJR+37iQrLzMgCeLra5
bO0Ym5qCz0o9miQ1xvt0xl4=
=mw/+
Paul Smith
sh> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>>> Could someone plz point me to those words in new version which cause
>>> all the troubles?
>> OK, let me lay it out as concisely as possible.
>> 1) XFree86 license 1.1 _requires_ attribution with other third-party
>> attributions.
>> 2) This requirement is an additional restriction beyond what the GPL
>> itself restricts.
>> 3) The GPL prohibits any additional restrictions.
>> From these three points we conclude:
>> 4) The XFree86 license 1.1 is incompatible with the GPL.
sh> So the only problem with this whole mess is that the XFree people
sh> want us to give them credit in the same place and mannar as we
sh> already give other third parties credit?
No. In fact RMS was recently quoted on this subject as saying that the
request for attribution is not in itself a bad thing:
http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=297
The problem is exactly what Donnie says: the license is not compatible
with the GPL.
Much of the software distributed on your distribution is licensed under
the GPL, including many X applications. If the license of the X
libraries is not compatible with the GPL, then no one can distribute
them together.
Qt, for example, is only distributable without royalties under the GPL,
which means that no Qt libraries can be linked with X libraries under
the new license (unless you pay $$ to TT). I'm sure the KDE folks, at
the least, would not be happy about that.
sh> XFree86, pending a replacement, is the only thing giving Linux any
sh> credibility as a desktop operating system. Therefore, I would say
sh> it's rather an integral part of the acceptance of our distribution
sh> and OS as a whole. As such, I wouldn't think a one-liner in a
sh> README, INSTALL, or product literature is such a Big Stinking
sh> Deal.
No one said it was.
sh> It's not like they're making the software non-free, they're not
sh> demanding royalties, they're not prohibiting the software from
sh> being distributed, they're just asking for due credit.
Yes. The problem is the way they are doing it.
sh> Think of it from their point of view; when some Joe Schmoe starts
sh> up X, they see what - KDE or Gnome. What do they think is
sh> providing them a GUI? KDE or Gnome. They don't realize that
sh> underneath these environments is a hard-working old man spewing
sh> 2D/3D rendering instructions to their video cards and keeping the
sh> windows from falling off the screen. All they want is a small
sh> heads-up. Is that so wrong?
You're arguing a straw man.
sh> I'd really like a point-by-point dissection of the objectionable
sh> license changes
Donnie provided one, and you even quoted it above.
It may seem a little thing to you, but free software folks care a lot
about these kinds of things. We rely heavily on copyright and licenses,
and so we try to respect both the letter _and_ the intent of each one
that we use.
sh> Thank-you in advance for helping us understand a potentially
sh> earth-shattering situation over which we seem to have no control.
Really, I think you're overstating the enormity of the situation. We
still have all the distribution up to 4.4rc2. X has been forked before
(where do you think XFree came from in the first place?), and it can
easily be forked again if it comes to that.
But, I doubt it will come to that.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <psm...@nortelnetworks.com> HASMAT--HA Software Mthds & Tools
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
George Shapovalov
> So the only problem with this whole mess is that the XFree people want
> us to give them credit in the same place and mannar as we already give
> other third parties credit?
gnu.org page has a discussion on where such clause leads over time and why
similar one has been pulled off the original BSD license.
But that's not the main problem. The real issue is the GPL compatibility, in a
sense that including XFree86 under this license makes it illegal to
distribute *a lot* of GPL packages. So, have xfree86-4.4 all you want, but
then no kde/gnome for you (or the majority of wm's) ;).
Well, this is not so much the issue for the end user, as long as he fetches
and builds X and the rest of the linked packages himself, but even then, in
order to give that CD to somebody else, he will have to do a few (just tiny
for now) additional motions. Well, may be not that tiny, since IIRC one of
them includes contacting X people (core team as I understand, which seems to
be just one person at the moment. But I may be way off here, so don't cite
me).
So, to reiterate, as a distribution we cannot include both X under the new
license and the apps that link against it as we will be breaking the law.
> I'd really like a point-by-point dissection of the objectionable license
> changes so we can see the exact reasons why it's unacceptable. Thus far
> here, other distribution mail list archives, and even on the LKML all
> I've seen is vague accusations that XFree86 is "no longer free" and
> "unacceptable" for inclusion/distribution.
Than you really ought to go through those links supplied in the original
announcement, including the discussion on the cited lists.
George
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Donnie Berkholz
> On Thursday 19 February 2004 10:18 pm, Tal Peer wrote:
> > But that's not the point.
> > The point is that the incompatability between the (new) X license and the
> > GPL plus the presence of GPL drivers for X makes the portage tree tainted,
> > license-wise.. or something along those lines.
> Any reason such drivers cannot DEPEND on XFree<3.4 (or wherever the new
> license's usage begins)?
This may be a good point and worth further analysis. However just
because we pretend that's the dependency, it isn't a real dependency in
any sense and neither the software itself nor its licenses have changed,
so legally your point may be moot.
Luke-Jr
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 20 February 2004 04:59 am, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 17:43, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > On Thursday 19 February 2004 10:18 pm, Tal Peer wrote:
> > > But that's not the point.
> > > The point is that the incompatability between the (new) X license and
> > > the GPL plus the presence of GPL drivers for X makes the portage tree
> > > tainted, license-wise.. or something along those lines.
> > Any reason such drivers cannot DEPEND on XFree<3.4 (or wherever the new
> > license's usage begins)?
> This may be a good point and worth further analysis. However just
> because we pretend that's the dependency, it isn't a real dependency in
> any sense and neither the software itself nor its licenses have changed,
> so legally your point may be moot.
Perhaps Portage should be able to look at the licenses used by packages and
detect incompatibilties then... If a DEPEND isn't enough (because people can
override them), a few lines of code in src_unpack should be able to do the
same thing. Similar to how some packages currently implement ACCEPT_LICENSES
manually.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFANZogZl/BHdU+lYMRAt5EAJwLMsqZxgelExVWCtsSpn7XB085OwCbBxKB
WxRzZX1D7CIEMB70FK9B2ek=
=whOZ
Mike Frysinger
> Perhaps Portage should be able to look at the licenses used by packages and
> detect incompatibilties then...
perhaps we just dont add this crap to our tree
that's what donnie's doing and i for one strongly support him
-mike
Paul de Vrieze
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > ...
> > We are seeking solutions/alternatives for this issue, so you can sit
> > back, relax and let us do the dirty work.
>
> For curiousity's sake (as I'm sure I'm not the only one curious), what
> alternatives are being considered, or possible/practicle?
Basically I expect someone to step up and announce a fork with new, better
procedures etc. At that point XFree might give in or the fork might continue
and XFree will get a life similar to that of X.org
Peter Robinson
> Basically I expect someone to step up and announce a fork with new, better
> procedures etc. At that point XFree might give in or the fork might
> continue and XFree will get a life similar to that of X.org
http://www.y-windows.org/about.html
There's still a lot work needed before it can be used for every day work but
the concept sounds promising.
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Eldad Zack
Which means it won't be ready anytime soon.
There's KP's xserver, and there's also the fork of XFree, xouvert(.org),
which already released a tarball you can (try to) compile.
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Daniel Armyr
> dissatisfied with the status quo.
If the status quoe is that no Linux distro will include any version of XFree beyond 4.3, yeah a few of us will be mildly unsatisfied. To say the least.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
daniel...@home.se f00...@f.kth.se
Tegnergatan 40 rum 505 +46 8 8 31 52 17
113 59 Stockholm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Nathaniel McCallum
> > I imagine something usable will crop up, if enough people are
> > dissatisfied with the status quo.
>
> If the status quoe is that no Linux distro will include any version of XFree beyond 4.3, yeah a few of us will be mildly unsatisfied. To say the least.
>
what the developers do. For instance, if distros just roll over and
accept the possible license problems, then users wont get upset with
xfree. If users don't get upset with xfree86.org, then we will have the
same stagnant development we have always had. On the other hand, if we
developers (and the distros) make a stink, it will upset users. Upset
users will either force xfree86 to change its ways, or will cause
forks. Forks create competition, and both competition and pressure from
users will create better innovation, which means a better X for users.
THEREFORE: Get mad all you want, just make sure you point the
frustration at Xfree86. That will result in a better linux GUI
experience for us all!
Nathaniel
Drake Wyrm
<1076987863.15233.27.camel@localhost>, Donnie Berkholz
<spyd...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> We won't be adding versions of XFree86 with the 1.1 license [1] to the
> tree, so don't be surprised when 4.3.99.903 doesn't show up with the new
> license.
>
> thoroughly in other forums [2-8].
>
> We are seeking solutions/alternatives for this issue, so you can sit
> back, relax and let us do the dirty work.
This idea is bound to get a few extreme reactions. Those who insist on
reacting extremely may email me privately.
Also, I am thinking abstractly at the moment. This is unlikely
to present an immediate solution, but will certainly provide some
thought-fodder. When you play chess, do you try to see the board from
different angles?
The problem is that the XFree license and the GPL are now
incompatible. For smooth progression of overall Linux development, one
of these licenses must now change. This does not necessarily imply that
the one which changed most recently needs to change back. So much focus
has been applied to the "offending" portion of the new XFree license;
perhaps we should lend the same critical eye to our beloved GPL. One
possible analogy for the situation is that the XFree license demonstrated
a bug in the GPL.
Of course, attribution is not always practical. Imagine documentation
for the kernel with complete attribution. While it would have shortened
this whole SCO business, an exhaustive list of contributors might now
be larger that the actual sources. Mandatory attribution requirements
in the GPL would be a Bad Thing(tm).
Attribution is a fairly reasonable request for Open Source / Free
Software licensing. The authors just want a little recognition for their
efforts. Prohibited attribution requirements is also a Bad Thing(tm).
One solution to the issue would be inclusion in the GPL of one or
more optional clauses. Much in the same way that "front cover" and
"back cover" texts may be included in a GPLed package, one could use a
"GPL+attribution" license. Such a license would be compatible with the
new XFree license.
--
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"?
Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action.
--Ghost in the Shell
Jon Portnoy
I think it's perfectly reasonable for a license to insist on people not
placing further restrictions on the code. This is what prevents people
from making free software nonfree. The BSD license approach is not at
all intended to keep free software free; it's intended to let people
create proprietary software using free software code. What you're
actually suggesting is reforming the way the entire free software
community feels about freedom and licensing. Have you really thought
this through?
Basically you're stating that it should be acceptable to place
proprietary restrictions on what was at one point free software. If
people wanted their code to be treated that way, they wouldn't license
it under the GPL. Nobody's forcing anybody to put their code under one
license or another. I would not use a license that allows additional
restrictions for most of what I do; I only license relatively trivial
things under BSD-style licenses.
>
> Attribution is a fairly reasonable request for Open Source / Free
> Software licensing. The authors just want a little recognition for their
> efforts. Prohibited attribution requirements is also a Bad Thing(tm).
>
It's not about attribution requirements; it's about any additional
restriction whatsoever.
> One solution to the issue would be inclusion in the GPL of one or
> more optional clauses. Much in the same way that "front cover" and
> "back cover" texts may be included in a GPLed package, one could use a
> "GPL+attribution" license. Such a license would be compatible with the
> new XFree license.
>
Sure, if one wanted to. Apparently they do not. The people who picked
the GPL for their code presumably picked it because they didn't want to
use a different license. That seems straightforward enough.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying people _shouldn't_ use a license like
the BSD-style licenses that permit all kinds of additional restrictions,
if that's the license they want to use. But we're talking here about
existing packages whose authors specifically picked the GPL who
presumably do not want their license violated.
--
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Jay Maynard
can't let Jon's comment slide unrebutted, and so I'll somment on Drake's
message while I'm here.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 04:33:03PM -0500, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 12:50:34PM -0800, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> > The problem is that the XFree license and the GPL are now
> > incompatible. For smooth progression of overall Linux development, one
> > of these licenses must now change. This does not necessarily imply that
> > the one which changed most recently needs to change back. So much focus
> > has been applied to the "offending" portion of the new XFree license;
> > perhaps we should lend the same critical eye to our beloved GPL. One
> > possible analogy for the situation is that the XFree license demonstrated
> > a bug in the GPL.
I've been arguing for over a decade that the GPL is buggy. Its deliberate
incompatibility with other open source licenses is one symptom of that.
> I think it's perfectly reasonable for a license to insist on people not
> placing further restrictions on the code. This is what prevents people
> from making free software nonfree.
NO!!!
You CANNOT make existing freely available software non-freely-available.
Period. It cannot be done. Copyright laws will not allow it. Regardless of
what anyone does with a piece of code, no matter what license itt's under,
that code cannot be made other than freely available. Non-viral licenses
allow people to make THEIR OWN WORK other than freely available, but this is
exactly as it should be.
> The BSD license approach is not at all intended to keep free software
> free;
Wrong. If this were not the case, we wouldn't have the BSDs today. Sun would
have made them proprietary a long time ago.
> it's intended to let people create proprietary software using free
> software code.
Thus guaranteeing the maximum freedom for everyone. This is the true spirit
of free software, and why I think the FSF has it all wrong - and is being
intellectually dishonest in calling their position "free".
> What you're actually suggesting is reforming the way the entire free
> software community feels about freedom and licensing.
Speak for yourself, pilgrim.
> Have you really thought this through?
More than the frothing Stallmanites have.
> Basically you're stating that it should be acceptable to place
> proprietary restrictions on what was at one point free software.
No, he's not, because you cannot change the restrictions under which a piece
of code is available. You can place additional restrictions on your code,
but the original code is now and forever available under the same terms as
it was when the proprietary fork was taken.
> If people wanted their code to be treated that way, they wouldn't license
> it under the GPL.
Some folks don't have any choice.
Further, there are LOTS of folks out there that hold the same wrong belief
you do, and choose the GPL in light of that error.
> Nobody's forcing anybody to put their code under one
> license or another.
It is the explicit aim of the GPL to have all software, everywhere, under
any conditions, licensed under their anticommercial terms.
> I would not use a license that allows additional restrictions for most of
> what I do; I only license relatively trivial things under BSD-style
> licenses.
That is your prerogative. However, if you base that on the erroneous belief
that someone could take that software and make it no longer freely
available, I suggest you reexamine your position.
> > One solution to the issue would be inclusion in the GPL of one or
> > more optional clauses. Much in the same way that "front cover" and
> > "back cover" texts may be included in a GPLed package, one could use a
> > "GPL+attribution" license. Such a license would be compatible with the
> > new XFree license.
I stroongly doubt this will happen. RMS is so convinced of the holiness of
his True Cause that any concession to the real world is anathema.
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Paul de Vrieze
> On Mon, 2004-02-16, 22:17:43 -0500, in
> <1076987863.15233.27.camel@localhost>, Donnie Berkholz
> reacting extremely may email me privately.
>
> Also, I am thinking abstractly at the moment. This is unlikely
> to present an immediate solution, but will certainly provide some
> thought-fodder. When you play chess, do you try to see the board from
> different angles?
According to Keith Packard today at FOSDEM the bad license free version is
allready copied over to freedesktop.org and will probably be released soon
with some aditional fixes, and no license problems. As he said it, "I would
have thought xfree86 the last ones to fork us"
Donnie Berkholz
> According to Keith Packard today at FOSDEM the bad license free version is
> allready copied over to freedesktop.org and will probably be released soon
> with some aditional fixes, and no license problems. As he said it, "I would
> have thought xfree86 the last ones to fork us"
Good, I was hoping that would get announced at FOSDEM but I didn't see
anything on the news sites last I checked.
Thanks,
Donnie
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Jon Portnoy
> <grumble> I promised myself I'd stay the heck out of this one...but I just
> can't let Jon's comment slide unrebutted, and so I'll somment on Drake's
> message while I'm here.
>
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 04:33:03PM -0500, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 12:50:34PM -0800, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> > > The problem is that the XFree license and the GPL are now
> > > incompatible. For smooth progression of overall Linux development, one
> > > of these licenses must now change. This does not necessarily imply that
> > > the one which changed most recently needs to change back. So much focus
> > > has been applied to the "offending" portion of the new XFree license;
> > > perhaps we should lend the same critical eye to our beloved GPL. One
> > > possible analogy for the situation is that the XFree license demonstrated
> > > a bug in the GPL.
>
> I've been arguing for over a decade that the GPL is buggy. Its deliberate
> incompatibility with other open source licenses is one symptom of that.
>
You mean "deliberate incompatibility with licenses imposing additional
restrictions."
According to the FSF it's perfectly compatible with the following
licenses:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#TOCGPLCompatibleLicenses
I license my code under the GPL because I absolutely agree with
everything the GPL states. If I didn't, I would use a different
license. It's that simple: if you don't want your code to be strictly
free software, don't use a license that makes your code strictly free
software. You can spin it any way you want, but the copyright owner
picks the license, and they pick the license they _want to use_. If
people are picking licenses they haven't read or don't understand, that
is not a bug in the license but rather in the copyright owner.
> > I think it's perfectly reasonable for a license to insist on people not
> > placing further restrictions on the code. This is what prevents people
> > from making free software nonfree.
>
> NO!!!
>
> You CANNOT make existing freely available software non-freely-available.
> Period. It cannot be done. Copyright laws will not allow it. Regardless of
> what anyone does with a piece of code, no matter what license itt's under,
> that code cannot be made other than freely available. Non-viral licenses
> allow people to make THEIR OWN WORK other than freely available, but this is
> exactly as it should be.
I have an app 'foo' under the GPL. I link it to 'bar' under a
proprietary license. Because they're now linked, foo is a derived work
of bar. If I then redistribute those in a binary set, I have just
violated the license on foo.
Yes, that piece of GPL-licensed code cannot be made nonfree. When
they're linked, they can. That's why additional restrictions are a
problem. If we distribute a GRP set with GPL apps linked to libs with
additional restrictions, we are violating the license terms set down by
any of the GPL apps that're linked. Something under the BSD license
*can* have additional restrictions, including proprietary restrictions.
If you don't like the GPL, don't write your code under it; don't tell
those of us who license their code under the GPL *because we like it*
that we're somehow wrong. If you don't like a core component being under
a license you don't like, rewrite the component from scratch under a
different license. That's what the freedesktop people are doing with X.
You are absolutely right; copyright law will not allow you to violate
copyright licenses. The GPL is a license that forbids additional
restrictions, so it's illegal to try to impose additional restrictions.
The BSD license is a license that _doesn't_ forbid additional
restrictions, so it's _not_ illegal to impose additional restrictions.
Did you misunderstand what I was saying? I was saying that what keeps
free software from being redistributed under nonfree terms is the "no
additional restrictions" clause (read section 6 of the GPL; the only
additional restrictions allowed are specified by section 8, which is
very limited in scope). The BSD license, on the other hand, does not set
down very strict terms and permits source/binary redistribution with
additional restrictions.
As for "THEIR OWN WORK," as you put it, the copyright holder can
relicense GPL-licensed code under another license any time they please.
I can release an application I write under the GPL, again under the BSD
license, and again under a proprietary license. Lots of people use dual
license approaches. Nobody can *retroactively* change a license, of
course, but that's an entirely different subject. I think you're a
little confused about this. A license does not place restrictions on the
actual copyright holder; the actual copyright holder can do whatever
they please by virtue of being the copyright holder. They can grant
other people permission to do whatever they please by distributing it to
that person under a totally different license.
Does that clarify things for you? Let me know if it doesn't; I'm willing
to elaborate further.
>
> > The BSD license approach is not at all intended to keep free software
> > free;
>
> Wrong. If this were not the case, we wouldn't have the BSDs today. Sun would
> have made them proprietary a long time ago.
You misunderstand what I mean. See above; you cannot _retroactively_
change a license on anything, but the BSD license permits other people
to take your code and use it in a proprietary project. In other words,
that code can be made nonfree. This is not the purpose of the GPL; your
entire issue seems to be that the GPL is a license intended to
perpetuate freedom, whereas the BSD license doesn't have the same
ideals involved.
>
> > it's intended to let people create proprietary software using free
> > software code.
>
> Thus guaranteeing the maximum freedom for everyone. This is the true spirit
> of free software, and why I think the FSF has it all wrong - and is being
> intellectually dishonest in calling their position "free".
You mean "this guarantees the freedom to deny freedom." I do not want my
code used in such a way, which is why I do not use the BSD license for
anything nontrivial. If someone *does* want their code used in such a
way, wouldn't they use a BSD-style license? Isn't it fair to let the
copyright holder make that decision? Isn't that an improvement on Jay
Maynard making that decision for them?
If you want your code used in proprietary products, use a license that
permits it to be used in proprietary products. If you (like me) do not
want that, do not use a license that permits it to be used in
proprietary products. If you do not want your code used in free software
products, use a license that does not permit it to be used in free
software products. And so on.
What you seem to actually be suggesting is that everyone should use
licenses that do things they don't want them to do because that's what
*you* believe.
>
> > What you're actually suggesting is reforming the way the entire free
> > software community feels about freedom and licensing.
>
> Speak for yourself, pilgrim.
>
> > Have you really thought this through?
>
> More than the frothing Stallmanites have.
>
Please tell me I didn't just waste all that time explaining copyright
and licensing basics for a troll.
> > Basically you're stating that it should be acceptable to place
> > proprietary restrictions on what was at one point free software.
>
> No, he's not, because you cannot change the restrictions under which a piece
> of code is available. You can place additional restrictions on your code,
> but the original code is now and forever available under the same terms as
> it was when the proprietary fork was taken.
>
Please study up on derived works and linking so you can understand what
I'm saying.
> > If people wanted their code to be treated that way, they wouldn't license
> > it under the GPL.
>
> Some folks don't have any choice.
Really? Somebody's holding a gun to their head and forcing them to write
code under the GPL?
> Further, there are LOTS of folks out there that hold the same wrong belief
> you do, and choose the GPL in light of that error.
Sorry, none of my beliefs are wrong. Unfortunately, your understanding
of copyright law and licensing seems to be very much lacking, which
makes it very difficult to hold an intelligent discussing about real
world licensing issues.
>
> > Nobody's forcing anybody to put their code under one
> > license or another.
>
> It is the explicit aim of the GPL to have all software, everywhere, under
> any conditions, licensed under their anticommercial terms.
That's just silly.
Perhaps you didn't mean the GPL; if you meant "the explicit aim of the
FSF" you may be closer to the mark. However, they are not forcing anyone
to do anything. They are not forcing you to use the GPL on your code,
they are not forcing you to link to GPL-licensed code, they are not
forcing you to use GPL-licensed applications. What they *are* doing is
attempting to explain to people why they feel that free software is
better for society. They can't _force_ you to do anything.
>
> > I would not use a license that allows additional restrictions for most of
> > what I do; I only license relatively trivial things under BSD-style
> > licenses.
>
> That is your prerogative. However, if you base that on the erroneous belief
> that someone could take that software and make it no longer freely
> available, I suggest you reexamine your position.
I suggest you reexamine the issue of derived works in copyright law and
then reexamine what I said, particularly the parts about licenses that
allow additional restrictions versus those that don't and how that
affects the perpetuation of freedom in software.
By not allowing additional restrictions on things I write, I am
preventing other people from taking my work, adding their work, and
never letting other people benefit from the opportunity to take both my
work and their work together, add their own work, and release that back.
Under a BSD-style license, they can take my work, add their work, and
release it under a proprietary license. If the copyright holder feels
that's how they want their code to be used, that's the licensing scheme
they'll use.
Under a GPL-style license, they can take my work, add their work, and
have to release their work too so that somebody else can take my work
and their work, add their own work, and so on. That's how I want my code
to be treated, so that's the licensing scheme I use.
Luke-Jr
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 22 February 2004 09:33 pm, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying people _shouldn't_ use a license like
> the BSD-style licenses that permit all kinds of additional restrictions,
> if that's the license they want to use. But we're talking here about
> existing packages whose authors specifically picked the GPL who
> presumably do not want their license violated.
However, I don't think a GPL+attribution license exists. I'm sure many authors
of software licensed under the GPL wouldn't mind an optional attribution
clause and wouldn't mind using such a license for their projects. There are
probably cases where the GPL is used simply because it is the most popular
license for free software.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAOW+TZl/BHdU+lYMRAv5xAJ9YFZLgsU4CGfSQqQ12iUtWYFUnAQCfcoVJ
ZXrg+sNJJ3XAABt0f2cCPUU=
=WV4y
Luke-Jr
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 22 February 2004 09:50 pm, Jay Maynard wrote:
> > Nobody's forcing anybody to put their code under one
> > license or another.
> It is the explicit aim of the GPL to have all software, everywhere, under
> any conditions, licensed under their anticommercial terms.
The GPL does not prevent commercial sales of software. It only guarantees the
right to modify and redistribute the software by all who have it.
Proprietary software denies people these rights so the GPL's prevention of
such downstream licensing is a good thing.
The GPL is non-free in a way which preserves rights, but the problems come in
when other reasonable terms wish to be applied to software such as
attribution or more strict patent licensing (such as Apache's new license) or
one wants to use code in a project that is not licensed to preserve rights
(BSD).
Ideally, the GPL would be unneccesary and only be a problem, but unfortunately
everything is not ideal and such licensing is needed to preserve rights that
are not guaranteed by governments.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAOXFoZl/BHdU+lYMRAmYKAJ4iqOuXEdgxaBPOM2mB0TH1AdR1wgCeLphO
X6gIfOftl0r7kRp8VgAcwmo=
=vmDw
Jay Maynard
> The GPL does not prevent commercial sales of software.
Officially, no. Practically, yes: you only get to sell one copy before your
customer turns around and gives it away.
> Proprietary software denies people these rights so the GPL's prevention of
> such downstream licensing is a good thing.
Only if you think that destroying the software industry as we now know it is
a good thing. I beg to differ.
> The GPL is non-free in a way which preserves rights
Only if you're not a programmer.
> but the problems come in when other reasonable terms wish to be applied to
> software such as attribution or more strict patent licensing (such as
> Apache's new license) or one wants to use code in a project that is not
> licensed to preserve rights (BSD).
...IOW, if you want to live in Stallman's utopia, you're welcome; if not,
the FSF doesn't care about your freedom.
> Ideally, the GPL would be unneccesary and only be a problem, but
> unfortunately everything is not ideal and such licensing is needed to
> preserve rights that are not guaranteed by governments.
Governments don't guarantee rights. They only take them away.
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Luke-Jr
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 23 February 2004 03:33 am, Jay Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 03:20:05AM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > The GPL does not prevent commercial sales of software.
> Officially, no. Practically, yes: you only get to sell one copy before your
> customer turns around and gives it away.
Assuming you give them reason to give it away and the people who they give it
to don't freely pay anything. Legalizing copying removes the incentive for
alot of warez people to copy it in the first place.
>
> > Proprietary software denies people these rights so the GPL's prevention
> > of such downstream licensing is a good thing.
> Only if you think that destroying the software industry as we now know it
> is a good thing. I beg to differ.
The software industry, as far as I'm concerned, only compromises of open
source software. Using software for which one does not have the source code
is, in addition to other issues which can easilly be dismissed as a matter of
opinion, a security hole. (Yes, I am aware compilers can be infected to have
undetectable code-worms, but in reality this is impractical to implement)
>
> > The GPL is non-free in a way which preserves rights
> Only if you're not a programmer.
Usually the reaction is the opposite. The rights it preserves in general only
benefit programmers, not non-programmers. Just because most people don't care
to tweak with cars (for legitimate reasons) doesn't mean those who do should
be denied the right to, does it?
>
> > Ideally, the GPL would be unneccesary and only be a problem, but
> > unfortunately everything is not ideal and such licensing is needed to
> > preserve rights that are not guaranteed by governments.
> Governments don't guarantee rights. They only take them away.
Governments exists solely for the citizens. Whether true in practice or not,
they should not remove rights.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAOXfxZl/BHdU+lYMRAphLAJ9BUHhjB7wQ8Iyxh/GEYt+alXQkHACfaT4R
zW4K+sOdptNFv/1nmpLSJ0M=
=X7g2
Jason Stubbs
> We won't be adding versions of XFree86 with the 1.1 license [1] to the
> tree, so don't be surprised when 4.3.99.903 doesn't show up with the new
> license.
>
> I won't elaborate on the reasons because it's been discussed quite
I hate to kick a dead horse, but...
I've read all the reasons and understand them and don't wish to dispute them,
but I do have one small question. What's the difference between this
situation and the GPL'd Linux kernel "linking" against functions in the
close-sourced BIOS, ACPI, APM, etc, etc?
Regards,
Jason Stubbs
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Brian Jackson
The kernel doesn't link against those things. Actually the kernel doesn't link
against anything ouside of the kernel itself (i.e. glibc, etc.) since those
things wouldn't be available when the kernel is starting. Using hardware
features is quite a bit different than linking against certain libraries.
It's kind of the same as the difference between kernel space and user space
(but not even close). We can have non-gpl'ed userspace programs even if they
call the kernel in some way (and they all do, even a open() eventually gets
to the kernel).
--Iggy
>
> Regards,
> Jason Stubbs
>
> --
> gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
--
http://www.brianandsara.net
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Jason Stubbs
> On Wednesday 25 February 2004 00:32, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 February 2004 12:17, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > We won't be adding versions of XFree86 with the 1.1 license [1] to the
> > > tree, so don't be surprised when 4.3.99.903 doesn't show up with the
> > > new license.
> > >
> > > I won't elaborate on the reasons because it's been discussed quite
> > > thoroughly in other forums.
> >
> > I hate to kick a dead horse, but...
> >
> > I've read all the reasons and understand them and don't wish to dispute
> > them, but I do have one small question. What's the difference between
> > this situation and the GPL'd Linux kernel "linking" against functions in
> > the close-sourced BIOS, ACPI, APM, etc, etc?
>
> The kernel doesn't link against those things. Actually the kernel doesn't
> link against anything ouside of the kernel itself (i.e. glibc, etc.) since
> those things wouldn't be available when the kernel is starting. Using
> hardware features is quite a bit different than linking against certain
> libraries. It's kind of the same as the difference between kernel space and
> user space (but not even close). We can have non-gpl'ed userspace programs
> even if they call the kernel in some way (and they all do, even a open()
> eventually gets to the kernel).
After reading the GPLv2 closely several times with your words in mind, I think
I have a hold on how it all works now. Below are excepts of the GPLv2 with my
interpretations. I'll take no response as affirmation. :)
<excerpts>
0. A "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative
work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a
portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into
another language.
3. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for
all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus
the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with
the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on
which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the
executable.
</excerpts>
These two when combined mean that the source of a Program under the GPL
includes all header files/libs/whatever that is required to be able to
compile the Program. The source for the libs aren't part of the Program's
source, but the libs themselves are.
The special exception I read, not as applying to the operating system but, as
applying to the base platform. Hence, this automatically covers all hardware
and negates my question above. On Windows, this means an out-of-the-box
installation plus any updates to the operating system that are available.
On GNU/Linux, I understand it to be gcc, glibc & linux but beyond that the
line is a bit fuzzy. In fact, glibc is licensed under the LGPL so I'm not
even sure if that should be included in what makes up a GNU/Linux's base
system. I can't see anything when flicking through the FAQ's TOC, but I'll
read through that later and probably find the answer there.
I'll intentionally leave out an interpretation of 6, because it's fairly
straight-forward when read with this understanding of Program.
John Nilsson
> line is a bit fuzzy. In fact, glibc is licensed under the LGPL so I'm not
> even sure if that should be included in what makes up a GNU/Linux's base
> system. I can't see anything when flicking through the FAQ's TOC, but I'll
> read through that later and probably find the answer there.
If I understand GNU correct the X Windows System is part of the base
system...
"To begin with, GNU will be a kernel plus all the utilities needed to
write and run C programs: editor, shell, C compiler, linker,
assembler, and a few other things. After this we will add a text
formatter, a YACC, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of
other things. We hope to supply, eventually, everything useful that
normally comes with a Unix system, and anything else useful, including
on-line and hardcopy documentation." - Richard Stallman
(http://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html)
"GNU software and the GNU system
Developing a whole system is a very large project. To bring it into
reach, I decided to adapt and use existing pieces of free software
wherever that was possible. For example, I decided at the very beginning
to use TeX as the principal text formatter; a few years later, I decided
to use the X Window System rather than writing another window system for
GNU.
Because of this decision, the GNU system is not the same as the
collection of all GNU software. The GNU system includes programs that
are not GNU software, programs that were developed by other people and
projects for their own purposes, but which we can use because they are
free software." - Richard Stallman
(http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html)
Jay Maynard
> Because of this decision, the GNU system is not the same as the
> collection of all GNU software. The GNU system includes programs that
> are not GNU software, programs that were developed by other people and
> projects for their own purposes, but which we can use because they are
> free software." - Richard Stallman
> (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html)
This is as morally reprehensible as SCO's claim that anything any of their
licensees wrote for their Unix distributions is part of Unix.
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Luke-Jr
Hash: SHA1
You realize that the only difference between that description and what distros
do is that GNU wrote more of the core OS? Are you going to apply the same
statement to Gentoo, RedHat, and all the other distros who have written even
*less* of their OS's software?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAPKXfZl/BHdU+lYMRAjWNAJ9Hmqhqm5qUorGeO+jrfVaCZbrhBACffrM2
0etadMxk6GAeDgxSH8U6F4Y=
=6u8G
Jay Maynard
> On Wednesday 25 February 2004 01:35 pm, Jay Maynard wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 02:12:10PM +0100, John Nilsson wrote:
> > > Because of this decision, the GNU system is not the same as the
> > > collection of all GNU software. The GNU system includes programs that
> > > are not GNU software, programs that were developed by other people and
> > > projects for their own purposes, but which we can use because they are
> > > free software." - Richard Stallman
> > > (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html)
> > This is as morally reprehensible as SCO's claim that anything any of their
> > licensees wrote for their Unix distributions is part of Unix.
> You realize that the only difference between that description and what distros
> do is that GNU wrote more of the core OS? Are you going to apply the same
> statement to Gentoo, RedHat, and all the other distros who have written even
> *less* of their OS's software?
Stallman's claiming credit for all of Linux, anywhere it appears, just as
SCO is climing credot for all of AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, and every other
proprietary Unix. None of the distributors you cite are doing that.
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Paul Smith
jm> On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 02:12:10PM +0100, John Nilsson wrote:
>> Because of this decision, the GNU system is not the same as the
>> collection of all GNU software. The GNU system includes programs that
>> are not GNU software, programs that were developed by other people and
>> projects for their own purposes, but which we can use because they are
>> free software." - Richard Stallman
>> (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html)
jm> This is as morally reprehensible as SCO's claim that anything any
jm> of their licensees wrote for their Unix distributions is part of
jm> Unix.
Golly, I guess Gentoo must be even _more_ "morally reprehensible" than
either the FSF or SCO, eh?
I mean, they create a system that includes all kinds of free software
written by other people and they call it "Gentoo" without any permission
at all from all those developers! The horror!
At least the GNU folks actually _DO_ have copyright to the large
majority of the code in what they call "the GNU system"; the same can't
be said for Gentoo.
Just put down the soapbox... slowly... good... now back away...
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <psm...@nortelnetworks.com> HASMAT--HA Software Mthds & Tools
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Paul Smith
>> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 02:12:10PM +0100, John Nilsson wrote:
>> > > Because of this decision, the GNU system is not the same as the
>> > > collection of all GNU software. The GNU system includes
>> > > programs that are not GNU software, programs that were
>> > > developed by other people and projects for their own purposes,
>> > > but which we can use because they are free software." - Richard
>> > > Stallman (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html)
jm> Stallman's claiming credit for all of Linux, anywhere it appears,
jm> just as SCO is climing credot for all of AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, and
jm> every other proprietary Unix. None of the distributors you cite
jm> are doing that.
Please show me where Stallman is claiming credit for "all of Linux,
anywhere it appears". Certainly not in the text John quoted above.
In fact Stallman has _never_ claimed credit for Linux (the kernel). All
he has done is ask (not sue, but ask) that people use the name GNU/Linux
to reflect the huge amount of effort the GNU project has expended over
the years that make Linux distributions, including Gentoo, a reality.
You may not agree with that, but it's his right to make the request just
as it's your right to refuse... and no one is going to court about it.
And _no one_ is claiming ownership over things they don't own or didn't
write, so please drop the SCO flame-bait.
Here is what the quoted document actually _does_ say about Linux, BTW:
> Linux and GNU/Linux
>
> The GNU Hurd is not ready for production use. Fortunately, another
> kernel is available. In 1991, Linus Torvalds developed a
> Unix-compatible kernel and called it Linux. Around 1992, combining
> Linux with the not-quite-complete GNU system resulted in a complete
> free operating system. (Combining them was a substantial job in
> itself, of course.) It is due to Linux that we can actually run a
> version of the GNU system today.
>
> We call this system version GNU/Linux, to express its composition as a
> combination of the GNU system with Linux as the kernel.
John Robinson
think a couple of key observations can help clear this up. I think the
problem lies in understanding what Stallman's "GNU system" and "GNU
foundation" are, and how they differ.
>>Because of this decision, the GNU system is not the same as the
>>collection of all GNU software. The GNU system includes programs that
>>are not GNU software, programs that were developed by other people and
>>projects for their own purposes, but which we can use because they are
>>free software." - Richard Stallman
>>(http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html)
[...]
> This is as morally reprehensible as SCO's claim that anything any of their
> licensees wrote for their Unix distributions is part of Unix.
[...]
> Stallman's claiming credit for all of Linux, anywhere it appears, just
> as SCO is climing credot for all of AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, and every
> other proprietary Unix. None of the distributors you cite are doing
> that.
Stallman is saying in his first statement that the GNU system is a
collection of software, only some of which was written under the
umbrella of the GNU foundation, and all of which work together to form
an operating environment. The same could be said of Gentoo, etc.; the
only difference is that the GNU foundation doesn't technically
distribute the whole "GNU system": they only define it. What Stallman
_isn't_ saying is that all of the software in the GNU system is "GNU
software" (software written by members of or contributors to the GNU
foundation). Some of it isn't even licensed with the GNU license (though
it's probably all compatible).
Seriously, though: the word GNU is used to label two similar but
independent entities here. It's an easy thing to misunderstand; it isn't
exactly spelled out in the snippets we've had presented on this list. If
Stallman were saying what you, Jay, thought he was (and perhaps still
do-- I don't claim to have changed anybody's opinion here), we would all
be hard pressed not to be as upset at him as we might be with SCO.
- John Robinson
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Svyatogor
example Gaim, which is under GPL license. The have a Windows build, thus
linking against proprietary libraries (Win32 API). In this case it is
ok, but with XFree it seems to cause problems :/
>On Tuesday 17 February 2004 12:17, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
>We won't be adding versions of XFree86 with the 1.1 license [1] to the
>tree, so don't be surprised when 4.3.99.903 doesn't show up with the new
>license.
>
>I won't elaborate on the reasons because it's been discussed quite
>thoroughly in other forums.
Wkr,
--
Sergey Kuleshov <svya...@gentoo.org>
Home Page: http://dev.gentoo.org/~sergey
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Donnie Berkholz
> Hmm, this all issue with GPL seems o be quite strange. Let's take as an
> example Gaim, which is under GPL license. The have a Windows build, thus
> linking against proprietary libraries (Win32 API). In this case it is
> ok, but with XFree it seems to cause problems :/
We were just discussing this the other day, actually.
The end of clause 3 of the GPL:
"However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of
the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable."
In general, operating systems are excepted, and things included with the
toolchain are excepted.
Thanks,
Donnie
--
Donnie Berkholz
Gentoo Linux
Patrick Kursawe
> Hmm, this all issue with GPL seems o be quite strange. Let's take as an
> example Gaim, which is under GPL license. The have a Windows build, thus
> linking against proprietary libraries (Win32 API). In this case it is
> ok, but with XFree it seems to cause problems :/
Which part of
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs
do you not understand? :-)
This was already mentioned in this thread.
Bye, Patrick
Paul de Vrieze
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 26 February 2004 14:28, Svyatogor wrote:
> Hmm, this all issue with GPL seems o be quite strange. Let's take as
> an example Gaim, which is under GPL license. The have a Windows build,
> thus linking against proprietary libraries (Win32 API). In this case
> it is ok, but with XFree it seems to cause problems :/
There is no requirement for users of the Win32 API's to acknowledge
microsoft. If wanted, one can even build against open source header
files. This all means that there are no aditional restrictions imposed
upon people extending the source.
Paul
- --
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pau...@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAPfS8bKx5DBjWFdsRAuQSAKDceQQOLaOAVex2SWIoiJPySLCZEACeNdBe
lUaSDjFjtvMel92bLOv14/I=
=+r27
Svyatogor
additional restrictions, but rather talks about "source code
_distributed_". Nevertheless,
"need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either
source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and
so on)"
This partuclar part seems promising. Can't we treat XFree as a major
system component? I think that most of the packages in GRP set are built
with X in USE and XFree86 itself is distributed on the 2 Set CD by
default. I think it would be reasonable to treat graphical envirnment a
major componet.
When someone mentions Win 98 fo example, they don't tal about underlying
DOS separatly. The Unix world for some reason keeps on thinking that
graphical libs are not essential part, probably, just cause, one can
install a system without them. Sorry, for the analogy from "offtopic"
part, it's just the best one, which come to my mind.
P.S. I know that I might be repeating something that was already said on
the thread, in this case plz excuse.
--
Toby Dickenson
the new xfree license, but I'm not sure thats relevant to this case.
The xfree license faq http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licenses.html states that
the new license is not being applied to client-side libraries. IMHO GPL
compatibility of this new license is only relevant for server-side components
licensed under the GPL. Does that cover anything other than drivers?
On Thursday 26 February 2004 13:28, Svyatogor wrote:
> Hmm, this all issue with GPL seems o be quite strange. Let's take as an
> example Gaim, which is under GPL license. The have a Windows build, thus
> linking against proprietary libraries (Win32 API). In this case it is
> ok, but with XFree it seems to cause problems :/
--
Toby Dickenson
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Paul de Vrieze
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 26 February 2004 14:42, Toby Dickenson wrote:
> The other replies in this thread have discussed compatibility of the
> GPL with the new xfree license, but I'm not sure thats relevant to
> this case.
>
> The xfree license faq http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licenses.html
> states that the new license is not being applied to client-side
> libraries. IMHO GPL compatibility of this new license is only relevant
> for server-side components licensed under the GPL. Does that cover
> anything other than drivers?
Yes, it covers distributors such as us. It means that we still need to
acknowledge xfree86 if we make any acknowledgement. I could live with a
restriction where xfree86 would require an acknowlegement for any
derivated products which aim for a similar audience, given that that
would not include only distributor-patched versions of xfree.
Paul
- --
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pau...@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAPfotbKx5DBjWFdsRAna7AKCRA20r2J56VvH/W6t3FLYqKES+KgCbBCH7
ZgnnSqs9IyZRxAiX3v2hYW8=
=T/iX
Matthew Kennedy
[...]
> This partuclar part seems promising. Can't we treat XFree as a major
> system component? I think that most of the packages in GRP set are
> built with X in USE and XFree86 itself is distributed on the 2 Set CD
> by default. I think it would be reasonable to treat graphical
> envirnment a major componet.
But it isn't a major component (often one will use Gentoo for a server
OS). I don't think we should be squirming our way through some
dubious change in semantics to fit in with their new and incompatible
license.
--
Matthew Kennedy
Gentoo Linux Developer
Stewart
message. {sigh} )
Matthew Kennedy wrote:
>>This partuclar part seems promising. Can't we treat XFree as a major
>>system component? I think that most of the packages in GRP set are
>>built with X in USE and XFree86 itself is distributed on the 2 Set CD
>>by default. I think it would be reasonable to treat graphical
>>envirnment a major componet.
>
> But it isn't a major component (often one will use Gentoo for a server
> OS). I don't think we should be squirming our way through some
> dubious change in semantics to fit in with their new and incompatible
> license.
Yes, it is a major component. Nay, it is a critical component. Without a
GUI, we may as well write our source code on toilet paper and distribute
it to the developers to be used appropriately.
Graphical User Environment = Market Acceptance. Period.
--
Stewart Honsberger
Gentoo Developer
http://www.snerk.org/
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Donnie Berkholz
> Yes, it is a major component. Nay, it is a critical component. Without a
> GUI, we may as well write our source code on toilet paper and distribute
> it to the developers to be used appropriately.
>
> Graphical User Environment = Market Acceptance. Period.
You make the assumption that part of what makes Gentoo what it is, is
having X. This is not the case. It doesn't matter what you say about
market acceptance, if Gentoo is not provided by default with X (meaning
X is part of "system" in my interpretation), it is not a "major
component" of the "operating system."
D
Donnie Berkholz
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thursday 26 February 2004 14:42, Toby Dickenson wrote:
> > The other replies in this thread have discussed compatibility of the
> > GPL with the new xfree license, but I'm not sure thats relevant to
> > this case.
> >
> > The xfree license faq http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licenses.html
> > states that the new license is not being applied to client-side
> > libraries. IMHO GPL compatibility of this new license is only relevant
> > for server-side components licensed under the GPL. Does that cover
> > anything other than drivers?
>
> Yes, it covers distributors such as us. It means that we still need to
> acknowledge xfree86 if we make any acknowledgement. I could live with a
> restriction where xfree86 would require an acknowlegement for any
> derivated products which aim for a similar audience, given that that
> would not include only distributor-patched versions of xfree.
Toby,
Here's a slight addition to what Paul had to say.
Perhaps you didn't notice, but I never mentioned anything about
client-side libraries. One thing I did mention, however, was GPL
drivers.
A little more detail from one of my original emails:
"If Gentoo distributes a GPL program or driver that can build against
any of the XFree86-licensed sources (for example, the SDK), Gentoo
probably violates the GPL. If Gentoo distributes a GPL XFree86 driver
(for example, x11-misc/synaptics) that can load into this X server,
Gentoo probably violates the GPL."
Thanks,
Matthew Kennedy
[...]
> Graphical User Environment = Market Acceptance. Period.
Irrelevant.
Brad Laue
> Stewart <blkd...@gentoo.org> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>
>>Graphical User Environment = Market Acceptance. Period.
>
>
> Irrelevant.
>
Very relevant. The year Linux begins to make its big stand as an
end-user operating system its chief graphical component is rejected
en-masse in a game of license-chicken. Who will blink first?
It's extremely wreckless to reject a project of such massive importance
without having a plan first.
I'm not sure if there's *any* output from Xouvert, and from what I'm
told, xserver-freedesktop is not a marketable product, simply a proving
ground for technologies that may or may not appear in an actual X
server. Great. We're not going to be able to pull an alternative out of
our hats as quickly as everyone thinks.
As dire as the legal implications may be in including 4.4, somehow it
still feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Brad
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Donnie Berkholz
> It's extremely wreckless to reject a project of such massive importance
> without having a plan first.
>
> I'm not sure if there's *any* output from Xouvert, and from what I'm
> told, xserver-freedesktop is not a marketable product, simply a proving
> ground for technologies that may or may not appear in an actual X
> server. Great. We're not going to be able to pull an alternative out of
> our hats as quickly as everyone thinks.
>
> As dire as the legal implications may be in including 4.4, somehow it
> still feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Frankly, there is a plan. It hasn't been publicly announced in any
official way, since things aren't solid yet. Do you honestly think all
these people (pragmatic for the most part) would reject something if
there was no chance of a viable alternative?
Wait and see what happens. As Seemant likes to say, "Show me the code."
Well, the code and the plan aren't quite ready yet.
Phil Richards
> Matthew Kennedy wrote:
> > Stewart <blkd...@gentoo.org> writes:
> >>Graphical User Environment = Market Acceptance. Period.
> > Irrelevant.
> Very relevant. The year Linux begins to make its big stand as an
> end-user operating system its chief graphical component is rejected
> en-masse in a game of license-chicken. Who will blink first?
It may be relevant to "let's get as many people to use Linux as possible".
It is irrelevant to the legality, or otherwise, of distributing GPL and
new-XFree86 licensed code.
"But, Your Honour, we only included Microsoft Office without a license
to do so from Microsoft in the Gentoo distribution to give it more
chance on the desktop. How can that be against the law?"
Not a very convincing argument, is it? So why do you want to use the
same style of argument here?
> It's extremely wreckless to reject a project of such massive importance
> without having a plan first.
It is extremely reckless to disregard the licenses of other peoples code.
Going for market acceptance by trampling over the wishes/legal rights
of the authors of other (free as in freedom) code is, frankly, obscene.
It is what one might expect from Microsoft - not from a Linux
distributor (unless it's SCO, of course).
> As dire as the legal implications may be in including 4.4, somehow it
> still feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
No, it's called "respecting other people's licenses". You could shorten
that to "respecting other people", if you like.
phil
--
change name before "@" to "phil" for email
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
John Nilsson
> On 2004-02-27, Brad Laue <br...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Matthew Kennedy wrote:
> > > Stewart <blkd...@gentoo.org> writes:
> > >>Graphical User Environment = Market Acceptance. Period.
> > > Irrelevant.
> > Very relevant. The year Linux begins to make its big stand as an
> > end-user operating system its chief graphical component is rejected
> > en-masse in a game of license-chicken. Who will blink first?
>
> It may be relevant to "let's get as many people to use Linux as possible".
> It is irrelevant to the legality, or otherwise, of distributing GPL and
> new-XFree86 licensed code.
>
> "But, Your Honour, we only included Microsoft Office without a license
> to do so from Microsoft in the Gentoo distribution to give it more
> chance on the desktop. How can that be against the law?"
>
> Not a very convincing argument, is it? So why do you want to use the
> same style of argument here?
It is not the same thing. If Xfree86 can be argued to be a standard
componet of a system Gentoo can COMPLY with the Xfree86 License AND be
compatible with the GPL for those applications linking wiht Xfree86.
-John
Phil Richards
> It is not the same thing. If Xfree86 can be argued to be a standard
> componet of a system Gentoo can COMPLY with the Xfree86 License AND be
> compatible with the GPL for those applications linking wiht Xfree86.
Yes, but the point is it *can't* be argued sensibly. The argument put
forward was (basically) "it makes the system more acceptable to end-users".
Well, so would including "Microsoft Office".
You *don't* need XFree86 to make a Linux-based operating system. Period.
No question, no argument, no discussion. It is therefore *not* one of
the "standard libraries that accompany the operating system" - the only
get-out-of-jail-free card that the GPL allows you to play. It is an
add-on to the core operating system for specific end-users - those that
want a user interface.
You could build a distribution that didn't violate the GPL, but you
might find that people wouldn't like it very much - there are lots of
things that are GPL'd that you would no longer be able to distrbute with
it. (Not everything, only those that link against X - like Gnome, gtk...)
I think these arguments have been done to death already... I'll shut up now.
John Nilsson
I think you are wrong. ;) I think it *can* be argued sensibly. For these
reasons.
1. Virtually all operating systems today ships with some GUI.
2. GNU (as in Gnu Public License) seems to regard the X Windows System
as a core system component.
All you *need* for a linux based operating system is linux and a static
binary called /sbin/init. Clearly the "Base system" referred to in GPL
extends to more than that.
Even though I argue for compatibility, I still think it is correct to
not ship XFree86. Mostly because Gentoo would and the OSS world would be
far better of with a more "geekish" and open development of the X11
implementation.
-John
Tom Wesley
> On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 10:52, Phil Richards wrote:
> > On 2004-02-27, John Nilsson <jo...@milsson.nu> wrote:
> > > It is not the same thing. If Xfree86 can be argued to be a standard
> > > componet of a system Gentoo can COMPLY with the Xfree86 License AND be
> > > compatible with the GPL for those applications linking wiht Xfree86.
> >
> > Yes, but the point is it *can't* be argued sensibly. The argument put
> > forward was (basically) "it makes the system more acceptable to end-users".
> > Well, so would including "Microsoft Office".
I believe that this point is void - Microsoft Office license will not allow distribution without payment to MS. XFree's will.
> >
> > You *don't* need XFree86 to make a Linux-based operating system. Period.
> > No question, no argument, no discussion. It is therefore *not* one of
> > the "standard libraries that accompany the operating system" - the only
> > get-out-of-jail-free card that the GPL allows you to play. It is an
> > add-on to the core operating system for specific end-users - those that
> > want a user interface.
> >
It is argued that XFree is a core component of a Linux desktop, and therefore qualifies for the exemption in the GPL, similar to Win32 versions of Gaim linking to core components of Windows. (I imagine that it must, on some level, link to the graphics rendering libraries?)
> > You could build a distribution that didn't violate the GPL, but you
> > might find that people wouldn't like it very much - there are lots of
> > things that are GPL'd that you would no longer be able to distrbute with
> > it. (Not everything, only those that link against X - like Gnome, gtk...)
> >
> > I think these arguments have been done to death already... I'll shut up now.
> >
> > phil
>
> I think you are wrong. ;) I think it *can* be argued sensibly. For these
> reasons.
>
> 1. Virtually all operating systems today ships with some GUI.
> 2. GNU (as in Gnu Public License) seems to regard the X Windows System
> as a core system component.
>
> All you *need* for a linux based operating system is linux and a static
> binary called /sbin/init. Clearly the "Base system" referred to in GPL
> extends to more than that.
I agree.
>
> Even though I argue for compatibility, I still think it is correct to
> not ship XFree86. Mostly because Gentoo would and the OSS world would be
> far better of with a more "geekish" and open development of the X11
> implementation.
>
> -John
--
Tom Wesley
Svyatogor
> I think you are wrong. ;) I think it *can* be argued sensibly. For these
> reasons.
>
> 1. Virtually all operating systems today ships with some GUI.
> 2. GNU (as in Gnu Public License) seems to regard the X Windows System
> as a core system component.
>
> All you *need* for a linux based operating system is linux and a static
> binary called /sbin/init. Clearly the "Base system" referred to in GPL
> extends to more than that.
modules, cannot be considered a core part of the system. How many useres
actually need some exotic crypto patch in the kernel? Now see how many
users actually need XFree.
>
> Even though I argue for compatibility, I still think it is correct to
> not ship XFree86. Mostly because Gentoo would and the OSS world would be
> far better of with a more "geekish" and open development of the X11
> implementation.
I agree. If there was any reasonable alternative (by reasonable, I meen
working and compatible) to XFree86, I would be glad to use it, rather
than look for ways to agree GPL with new Xfree license.
Wkr,
Jay Maynard
But it's not required to run the OS. Neither of my Gentoo boxes has X, and
neither will.
> Even though I argue for compatibility, I still think it is correct to
> not ship XFree86. Mostly because Gentoo would and the OSS world would be
> far better of with a more "geekish" and open development of the X11
> implementation.
I think it's correct not to ship XFree86 as things stand, too...but I also
think it's unfair as hell to hold the X folks solely responsible for the
situation. What we have here are two squabbling children, and most folks are
playing favorites. That's nto the way to handle squabbling children.
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Chris Gianelloni
> Very relevant. The year Linux begins to make its big stand as an
> end-user operating system its chief graphical component is rejected
> en-masse in a game of license-chicken. Who will blink first?
>
> It's extremely wreckless to reject a project of such massive importance
> without having a plan first.
>
> I'm not sure if there's *any* output from Xouvert, and from what I'm
> told, xserver-freedesktop is not a marketable product, simply a proving
> ground for technologies that may or may not appear in an actual X
> server. Great. We're not going to be able to pull an alternative out of
> our hats as quickly as everyone thinks.
>
> As dire as the legal implications may be in including 4.4, somehow it
> still feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Except for one simple thing you may have overlooked. We can still run
4.3 forever. There is nothing forcing anyone to upgrade. I think if
there were no alternative (running an older version IS and alternative)
we would all be less likely to be so adamant on our position.
--
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team
Is your power animal a penguin?
Chris Gianelloni
> > Not a very convincing argument, is it? So why do you want to use the
> > same style of argument here?
>
> It is not the same thing. If Xfree86 can be argued to be a standard
> componet of a system Gentoo can COMPLY with the Xfree86 License AND be
> compatible with the GPL for those applications linking wiht Xfree86.
I am looking at 7 Gentoo boxes right now and only 3 of them have X on
them. Only one of them is actually running X currently, but all of them
are being used and useful. I also have several machines at work which
run Linux and do not have X on them.
I don't think anyone would buy that *XFree86* is a standard component of
a Gentoo system. Not to mention, it seems like you're looking for some
way for us to worm our way around the blatant disregard for the GPL that
the XFree86 project has shown of late simply for what? A couple
drivers? What has really changed in XFree86 4.4 (from the 4.3.9x
releases, where the license changed) that is so damn important that we
should all simply ignore our morals and bend to XFree86's wishes?
I would tend to argue *NOTHING* at all is worth that... especially not a
few drivers.
Just my .02USD
Chris Gianelloni
> I think you are wrong. ;) I think it *can* be argued sensibly. For these
> reasons.
>
> 1. Virtually all operating systems today ships with some GUI.
...and XFree86 4.3.x does not fit this bill?
> 2. GNU (as in Gnu Public License) seems to regard the X Windows System
> as a core system component.
X Windows System != XFree86
> All you *need* for a linux based operating system is linux and a static
> binary called /sbin/init. Clearly the "Base system" referred to in GPL
> extends to more than that.
Actually, you don't need init to get "Linux" at all. Following the same
path, you need nothing more than a kernel to have "Linux" at all. Now,
to have an actual working system, you generally need the kernel, an init
system, a few libraries (like glibc, uclib, etc) and a shell.
> Even though I argue for compatibility, I still think it is correct to
> not ship XFree86. Mostly because Gentoo would and the OSS world would be
> far better of with a more "geekish" and open development of the X11
> implementation.
Gentoo is not going to stop shipping XFree86, as that would be asinine.
Rather we are simply not adding the NEW OFFENDING versions to portage.
There is a dramatic difference between the two.
Chris Gianelloni
> I believe that this point is void - Microsoft Office license will not allow distribution without payment to MS. XFree's will.
No, Xfree86's will not... the difference is MS wants money, XFree86
wants attribution. Both are "payment" for their work.
> It is argued that XFree is a core component of a Linux desktop, and therefore qualifies for the exemption in the GPL, similar to Win32 versions of Gaim linking to core components of Windows. (I imagine that it must, on some level, link to the graphics rendering libraries?)
Once again, *XFree86* is not a core component of ANYTHING, though *X*
may be.
John Nilsson
> On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 05:25, John Nilsson wrote:
> > I think you are wrong. ;) I think it *can* be argued sensibly. For these
> > reasons.
> >
> > 1. Virtually all operating systems today ships with some GUI.
>
> ...and XFree86 4.3.x does not fit this bill?
?
> > 2. GNU (as in Gnu Public License) seems to regard the X Windows System
> > as a core system component.
>
> X Windows System != XFree86
It is an implementation. You've got have an implementation in order to
link against it, no?
> > All you *need* for a linux based operating system is linux and a static
> > binary called /sbin/init. Clearly the "Base system" referred to in GPL
> > extends to more than that.
>
> Actually, you don't need init to get "Linux" at all. Following the same
> path, you need nothing more than a kernel to have "Linux" at all. Now,
> to have an actual working system, you generally need the kernel, an init
> system, a few libraries (like glibc, uclib, etc) and a shell.
Actually my initial statement was correct. If you do not modify the
linux source all you need to have a RUNNING system is a staticly linked
binary named /sbin/init. If the kernel can't find this it panics. When
the init process dies the kernel dies.
I did not say that this /sbin/init has to perform some actual function
like the SysV init does, just be an infinit loop. Also it does not have
to be a binary but the an interpreter would be needed.
I once set up a firewall this way. The /sbin/init just configured
iptables and put the log messages out to console. Nice one floppy
firewall on a diskless 486.
> > Even though I argue for compatibility, I still think it is correct to
> > not ship XFree86. Mostly because Gentoo would and the OSS world would be
> > far better of with a more "geekish" and open development of the X11
> > implementation.
>
> Gentoo is not going to stop shipping XFree86, as that would be asinine.
> Rather we are simply not adding the NEW OFFENDING versions to portage.
> There is a dramatic difference between the two.
True
-John
John Nilsson
> On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 04:40, John Nilsson wrote:
> > > Not a very convincing argument, is it? So why do you want to use the
> > > same style of argument here?
> >
> > It is not the same thing. If Xfree86 can be argued to be a standard
> > componet of a system Gentoo can COMPLY with the Xfree86 License AND be
> > compatible with the GPL for those applications linking wiht Xfree86.
>
> I am looking at 7 Gentoo boxes right now and only 3 of them have X on
> them. Only one of them is actually running X currently, but all of them
> are being used and useful. I also have several machines at work which
> run Linux and do not have X on them.
>
> I don't think anyone would buy that *XFree86* is a standard component of
> a Gentoo system. Not to mention, it seems like you're looking for some
> way for us to worm our way around the blatant disregard for the GPL that
> the XFree86 project has shown of late simply for what? A couple
> drivers? What has really changed in XFree86 4.4 (from the 4.3.9x
> releases, where the license changed) that is so damn important that we
> should all simply ignore our morals and bend to XFree86's wishes?
As stated in the same mail you are quoting, I am NOT arguing for Gentoo
to buy the Xfree86 crap. Just that it could be legaly possible.
Jon Portnoy
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 01:40:33PM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > On Wednesday 25 February 2004 01:35 pm, Jay Maynard wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 02:12:10PM +0100, John Nilsson wrote:
> > > > Because of this decision, the GNU system is not the same as the
> > > > collection of all GNU software. The GNU system includes programs that
> > > > are not GNU software, programs that were developed by other people and
> > > > projects for their own purposes, but which we can use because they are
> > > > free software." - Richard Stallman
> > > > (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html)
> > > This is as morally reprehensible as SCO's claim that anything any of their
> > > licensees wrote for their Unix distributions is part of Unix.
> > You realize that the only difference between that description and what distros
> > do is that GNU wrote more of the core OS? Are you going to apply the same
> > statement to Gentoo, RedHat, and all the other distros who have written even
> > *less* of their OS's software?
>
> Stallman's claiming credit for all of Linux, anywhere it appears,
Only when trolls intentionally misinterpret his statements that way.
Could you please take trolling to comp.os.linux.advocacy or
gnu.misc.discuss or some other forum where nobody has anything better to
do than troll and be trolled? Thanks.
--
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Jay Maynard
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 07:48:04AM -0600, Jay Maynard wrote:
> > Stallman's claiming credit for all of Linux, anywhere it appears,
> Only when trolls intentionally misinterpret his statements that way.
Why else does he insist that the name of his project be attached to it
whenever and wherever it's mentioned and refuse to have any dealings at all
with anyone who does not?
> Could you please take trolling to comp.os.linux.advocacy or
> gnu.misc.discuss or some other forum where nobody has anything better to
> do than troll and be trolled? Thanks.
I'm not trolling. These are my honest beliefs, honestly arrived at, and I
believe that Stallmanite misstatements of fact should not be allowed to go
unchallenged.
...or are you one of those who assumes that anyone who doesn't toe the
Stallmanite line must automatically be trolling?
...or is the Gentoo project another bastion of Stallmanism, like the Debian
Project?
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Jon Portnoy
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 01:17:20PM -0500, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 07:48:04AM -0600, Jay Maynard wrote:
> > > Stallman's claiming credit for all of Linux, anywhere it appears,
> > Only when trolls intentionally misinterpret his statements that way.
>
> Why else does he insist that the name of his project be attached to it
> whenever and wherever it's mentioned and refuse to have any dealings at all
> with anyone who does not?
>
What do you need to have a working system? Linux and the base pieces of
GNU. Hence he feels that GNU/Linux is appropriate. If you feel
differently, don't say it -- that's straightforward enough.
My position is that when I'm talking about the program (a kernel) called
'Linux' I say 'Linux,' when I'm talking about things GNU has produced, I
say 'GNU,' and when I'm talking about the combination of the two, I say
'GNU+Linux.' That seems to be correct in a technical sense. However,
that's just how _I_ refer to it. I honestly don't give a damn how _you_
refer to it as long as you do two things:
(a) don't care what I choose to say
(b) don't bring up irrelevancies whenever you spot a chance to tell
everyone how much you dislike RMS
For the record, nowhere did he ever claim credit for Linux. Linux is a
single program that he had nothing to do with.
> > Could you please take trolling to comp.os.linux.advocacy or
> > gnu.misc.discuss or some other forum where nobody has anything better to
> > do than troll and be trolled? Thanks.
>
> I'm not trolling. These are my honest beliefs, honestly arrived at, and I
> believe that Stallmanite misstatements of fact should not be allowed to go
> unchallenged.
"Beliefs are fine, just don't share them like they're the truth."
>
> ...or are you one of those who assumes that anyone who doesn't toe the
> Stallmanite line must automatically be trolling?
No, but when somebody takes any opportunity available to take potshots
at their personal stress relief ball, it certainly comes off as
trolling.
>
> ...or is the Gentoo project another bastion of Stallmanism, like the Debian
> Project?
WTF? Over.
Paul de Vrieze
>
> I'm not trolling. These are my honest beliefs, honestly arrived at, and I
> believe that Stallmanite misstatements of fact should not be allowed to go
> unchallenged.
You are pursuing a pointless discussion, to me that is trolling. If you happen
to disagree, so be it, but the discussion is pointless anyway.
>
> ..or are you one of those who assumes that anyone who doesn't toe the
> Stallmanite line must automatically be trolling?
>
> ..or is the Gentoo project another bastion of Stallmanism, like the Debian
> Project?
Some while ago (maybe more than a year), RMS tried to persuade us to call the
distribution gentoo gnu/linux. As you may know that never happened, so I find
the suggestion that Gentoo would be a bastion of Stallmanism strange.
Paul
Jay Maynard
> On Friday 27 February 2004 19:33, Jay Maynard wrote:
> > I'm not trolling. These are my honest beliefs, honestly arrived at, and
> > I believe that Stallmanite misstatements of fact should not be allowed
> > to go unchallenged.
> You are pursuing a pointless discussion, to me that is trolling. If you
> happen to disagree, so be it, but the discussion is pointless anyway.
Fine. Does that go for both sides, then? Can I call others on it if they
reopen the discussion, or take the Stallmanite line? Further, how do I
counteract the usual assumption that silence implies agreement?
> > ..or is the Gentoo project another bastion of Stallmanism, like the Debian
> > Project?
> Some while ago (maybe more than a year), RMS tried to persuade us to call
> the distribution gentoo gnu/linux. As you may know that never happened, so
> I find the suggestion that Gentoo would be a bastion of Stallmanism
> strange.
No, I didn't, and I'm happy to hear it. I've seen refernces to Gentoo
GNU/Linux a few times, and wasn't sure what the official position was.
All I ask is that folks recognize that Stallman's religion is not
universally adhered to among those with an interest in Linux, and not state
his political ideas as fact...which is what I have been called for doing.
The GPL is not the be-all and end-all of licenses, and is not the only
license capable of guaranteeing that one's code will always and forever
remain freely available. (Yes, I'm well aware of the operation of copyright
law. I'm also aware of the distinction between copyright law and licensing.)
Any Open Source Definition-compliant license will have that effect. The GPL
is merely the best known of those licenses, but there are folks who write
GPLed code not of their own choice, and it is wrong to assume that everyone
who releases a piece of code under the GPL does so because they fully and
completely agree with every last point of Stallmanite dogma. (Case in point:
I personally know of one suite of drivers that was released as GPL despite
the author's desire to release it as BSD, because corporate management
decreed that it would be GPLed in a mistaken belief that that would be
required for it to be included in the kernel.) Further, while there are
components of the GNU system in every Linux distribution I'm aware of, that
does not give Stallman the right to hijack the name, and his attempts to do
so amount to whining that he's not getting credit for his efforts - despite
the fact that lots and lots and lots of other folks who have contributed
similar effort aren't getting credit in the name of the system either.
(Indeed, not even the change to the XFree86 license can be viewed as an
attempt to claim such credit: they're not changing the name, just asking for
recognition in places that other folks get recognized.)
One doesn't have to agree with Stallman's utopia, or wish to be a part of
it, in order to wish to see Linux succeed in the marketplace or help make it
so. What really set me off was the assumption, in the first message I
replied to, that such agreement was necessary and could be assumed without
further thought or discussion.
The best way to avoid having what you see as "pointless discussion" on the
list is not to start it. I won't if others won't, but I see little wrong
with replying whenever my - or anyone else's - agreement with Stallmanite
dogma is assumed simply because of my interest in the subject or (potential)
membership in the community.
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Michael Cummings
thread at one point. Can we move this thread to -user where it probably
belongs at this point?
BTW, for those of you with threaded mail clients, I just picked a
level, this message isn't directed at whoever's parent thread I'm
attached to.
-Michael
Luke-Jr
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 25 February 2004 01:48 pm, Jay Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 01:40:33PM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > On Wednesday 25 February 2004 01:35 pm, Jay Maynard wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 02:12:10PM +0100, John Nilsson wrote:
> > > > Because of this decision, the GNU system is not the same as the
> > > > collection of all GNU software. The GNU system includes programs that
> > > > are not GNU software, programs that were developed by other people
> > > > and projects for their own purposes, but which we can use because
> > > > they are free software." - Richard Stallman
> > > > (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html)
> > > This is as morally reprehensible as SCO's claim that anything any of
> > > their licensees wrote for their Unix distributions is part of Unix.
> > You realize that the only difference between that description and what
> > distros do is that GNU wrote more of the core OS? Are you going to apply
> > the same statement to Gentoo, RedHat, and all the other distros who have
> > written even *less* of their OS's software?
> Stallman's claiming credit for all of Linux, anywhere it appears,
In every case except BusyBox-based and the kernel itself, it *is* logicly a
GNU/Linux-based operating system. The majority of the tools for most
Linux-based systems are written by GNU, so calling them GNU/Linux (if you
mention the internals at all) has nothing wrong with it.
In this case, he wasn't even talking about Linux in any form. He was talking
about the GNU system which, by it's normal definition, is mostly the GNU
tools and GNU HURD.
> just as SCO is climing credot for all of AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, and every
> other proprietary Unix. None of the distributors you cite are doing that.
By that very statement, RMS is acknowledging that other developers write some
of the free software used in the GNU system. How is that claiming credit for
it?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAPMmdZl/BHdU+lYMRAgMQAJ9heb6XrwSFp0i0TsEsG/zIkugSwwCggI/0
viMnhhAHVy9j+uo8t5JMkEg=
=NQra
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list