[wplug] Is XFree86 4.4 worth it?

[Dave Neuer]

--- Bill Moran <wmoran at potentialtech.com> wrote:
> Is it possible for you to teach your mailer not
> to mutilate everyone else's text?

Not really, it's yahoo mail's web interface. Sorry.

> 
> Dave Neuer wrote:
> > That is the NEW BSD license. The old one required
> you
> > to put the line I wrote, or something *very* close
> to
> > it, in all documentation and advertising.
> 
> What does that have to do with _anything_?
> 
> Which license are you talking about?  I'm talking
> about this license:
> http://www.xfree.org/legal/licenses.html

I believed we were specifically speaking of the BSD
license in the instance above.

Rereading the new XFree86 library, clause #3 would
seem to be the one that has everyone in a tizzy.

However, on reading the FAQ, it appears that they
aren't releasing the client libraries under the
license; that would seem to make things less than of
an issue.

Of course, it still rules out 3rd party GPL drivers
and plugins to the server.

> 
> I'm not even arguing about the restrictions you talk
> about.  I'm saying that the restrictions you're
> complaining about simply aren't in the license.
> 
> If I'm wrong on this, please correct me.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > But since the XFree86 license imposes an extra
> > condition (namely, the advertising clause),  it
> cannot
> > be distributed under the terms of the GPL,
> 
> Which license are you talking about?  I'm talking
> about
> this GPL:
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php
> 
> See section 2, the last paragraph.  It specifically
> states that you are wrong, and that you can
> distribute
> any programs you want along with a GPLed program. 
> No
> matter what license they use (I suppose it's
> possible
> that the OTHER license might forbid you from
> distribution with a GPLed program, but that's a
> different issue)
> 

That section covers aggregation, not linking. You can
distribute Windows on the same CD as GPL software.
However, software like GNOME links to the X libraries;
that's not covered under section 2.

> <snip>
> > The argument that the advertising clause is
> obnoxious
> > is different; I am fully willing to accept that
> people
> > that don't think it's a big deal are just as
> > reasonable as people like myself who don't like
> it.
> 
> Like I said, it's your call.  That's what freedom is
> all about, to decide for yourself.
> 
> The only thing I'm saying is that you're
> misunderstanding
> the GPL.
> 

No, but I was unaware that XFree86.org was NOT using
the new license for the client libraries that writers
of X apps must link to. That's a material difference
that makes me wonder a little bit myself what the big
deal is. Ah well.

Sorry we seemed to be talking around each other there.

Dave