XFree86 4.4.0 Release Candidate #3

Posted Feb 17, 2004 21:42 UTC (Tue) by austinchuck (guest, #15358) [Link]

This is the most stupid move by the XFree86 guys in a while...

Posted Feb 17, 2004 22:36 UTC (Tue) by ggoebel (guest, #4487) [Link]

FYI: Gentoo's not doing 4.4 either. I saw an email on the Gentoo developer's list to this affect earlier today.

Posted Feb 18, 2004 2:19 UTC (Wed) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]

Just to make it clear -- it's not illegal to use XFree86 with GPLd applications. Rather, it's copyright infringement to distribute GPLd applications compiled with (and/or intended for use with) XFree86. Copyright licenses do not restrict use, at least in the US.

Of course, with no way to distribute the applications, usage becomes kind of difficult.

Posted Feb 18, 2004 7:46 UTC (Wed) by duncan (guest, #8429) [Link]

While some parts of XFree86 with the 1.1 license may well be GPL-incompatible, a License discusion document (by David Dawes?) states that:

(see http://www.xfree86.org/~dawes/pre-4.4/LICENSE3.html )

/begin{quote}
3.3. GPL-compatible

The client-side X libraries distributed with this release (4.3.99.903) carry a subset of the acceptable licenses that satisfy an additional condition: they are GPL-compatible.

Other portions of XFree86, including the X servers, may include code with licenses that are not GPL-compatible. Example of such licenses include some of the BSD-style licenses, the FreeType License, the SGI licenses and the XFree86 License version 1.1.
/end{quote}

While the new "advertising clause"-like addition to the XFree86 license is regrettable because of its (unintended?) incompatibility with GPL, Dawes short-sightedly considers it the GPL's problem not his. But uninformed GPL partisans spreading FUD about it being "illegal to use XFree86 4.4 with Gnome/KDE" is quite irresponsible.

There apears to be NO GPL problem in distributing binaries of GPL applications linked to the X libraries.

It would be interesting to know whether this license change is completely one-person's (Dawes') whim. Was there any significant discussion among XFree86 developers before this change was announced as a "fait accompli"?

Has XFree86 governance become a one-man show?

Posted Feb 18, 2004 21:01 UTC (Wed) by salsaman (guest, #3671) [Link]

Sorry, my mistake.

Posted Feb 20, 2004 8:43 UTC (Fri) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

> Thirded (if that word exists and isn't rude).

"Proposed", "moved", and "seconded" refer by implication to traditional
(English??) rules of parliamentary procesure.

Formally, a proposal would be prepared beforehand, and included in the
formal meeting agenda. As the meeting progresses to that part of the
program, the board chairman (or speaker of parliament or whatever the
position happens to be called in the particular implementation at hand) will
announce that it is now time for introduction of the proposal, at which point
the sponsor will introduce it and there may be some general discussion. At
some point, either as scheduled or in a less formal procedure when one
recognized to speak decides there has been enough discussion, someone will
"move" for a vote on the "proposal" (at hand, or by name, in formal
implementations). For the "motion" to proceed, there must be at least one
other person that agrees, and "seconds" the motion. Without a second,
discussion continues as it was until someone else "moves" for closure of
discussion and tabling of the proposal (note that "tabling" in US usage
generally means to kill, while in European usage generally means to move
forward by bringing to a vote, but in each case a vote would be required) or
for closure of the discussion and a vote on doing the OPPOSITE of "tabling"
it (again noting that tabling can mean bringing to a vote to move forward, or
bringing to a vote to kill, depending on region). Again, someone else with
vote power must second the move, or discussion proceeds as before (or, in
some scheduled implementations, the proposal is eventually killed without
further support even to "second" it one way or the other).

Anyway, when a move IS eventually seconded, and that "second" recognized
by the chair or other meeting coordinator, the proposal comes to a vote of the
meeting in general, either to kill it, or to proceed with it (as possibly
amended since the original introduction, with intermediate proposals,
seconds, and votes).

Thus, after a recognized "second", no "third" is called for, because it comes to
a vote after recognition of the second. Thus, "third" is not a word to be used
within context, as further support (or disagreement) would be expressed by
one's vote.

Never-the-less, the word HAS become an accepted form (along with
"forthed", "fifthed", etc..) of an informal means to express support for the
motion (which might actually be OPPOSITION to the original proposal,
within context) at hand, in the absence of formal parliamentary proceedure or
where a traditional vote isn't practical.

All this of course as I've observed over the years in various community
gatherings, church and school boards, town and city councils, and other misc.
boards and meetings set up to decide this or that, generally with less than
absolutely formal rules, so my description of the formal rules may be less than
absolutely accurate, even where they do NOT vary by individual bylaws or
other implementation rules.

All that said, I guess I "forth" the proposal for an LWN article on the topic of
the new XFree86 license (which isn't actually formally correct in that
formally I'd have to "forth" a move to bring it to a vote, if that were possible,
and if "forth" was a recognized term in context, but anyway.. <g>).

.. I hope that clears up any confusion on the origins of the word "second" and
what it means, for anyone not familiar with the "between the lines" (another,
similar reference with an explanation of its own <g>) references.

Duncan